Durlston House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and their relatives had been involved in planning the support they needed. Plans set out people’s specific wishes, for example, the way people liked to be supported, people’s preferences about activities they took part in and how their specific health and communication needs should be met.

Relatives told us they were happy with the service people received, which met their specific needs. Comments included, “[Person] likes going on walks and being out and about. On a weekly basis they go for walks, go to the cinema, pub for lunch. Within the home [person] is very keen in taking part in arts and crafts activities and particularly enjoys making birthday cards for all family members. They are supported by staff to do this and to send the cards.” Staff said the service was focused on meeting people’s specific needs, to help them develop skills and have a good quality of life. This approach was reflected in the records of support provided.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider worked in partnership with other agencies, to ensure people received continuity of care. Details of this support was recorded in people’s care records. Relatives told us they worked well with the provider and specialist health services to ensure continuity of care for people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

At the last inspection we found people’s communications plans were not consistently followed by staff. At this inspection we found this had improved. People’s communication needs had been assessed, and a communication support plan had been developed with each person. Documents had been provided in more accessible formats for people, including the use of symbols, photographs and pictures. This included information on how to make a complaint. A relative commented, “[Person] is very visual and staff use visual material to help him.” During the inspection we observed staff using people’s specific communication methods to support them to make decisions.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints procedure, and accessible versions had been developed for people. There were systems to track all concerns and complaints that had been raised to ensure these had been followed up and action taken. Relatives told us staff listened to them and took action to resolve any issues, with comments including, “The staff always listen to us and will act upon any requests or concerns we have, which gives us a lot of confidence in them.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Assessments included the support people required to access the care they needed, including any specific equipment or adaptations. The assessments were regularly reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed. The provider had made adaptations to the building, fitting key fob locks to people’s bedrooms. People were able to use these locks, which enabled them to maintain their privacy and independence and to reduce restrictions.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. The management team were aware of the barriers people with disabilities may face and worked with a range of agencies to support people to overcome these. People’s needs were reviewed regularly to ensure they were being supported in the least restrictive way possible which still met their needs. Staff had worked with health and social care professionals to reduce restrictions for people, for example reducing medicines. People were supported to access local community services and healthcare by staff when needed. Staff had completed equality and diversity training and had a good understanding of the discrimination people may experience.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People had been supported to set goals for the future and plan out the support they needed to achieve those goals. The service was not providing any end-of-life care. The manager had started discussions with people and their relatives to ensure any specific wishes about end-of-life care were known. People had been supported to develop hospital passports. These gave clear information about people’s needs when attending health services and how they should be met to ensure continuity of care.