Hallam24 Bassetlaw

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 consistently told us their care and support plans reflected what they expected from Hallam24 Bassetlaw. We spoke with a care co-ordinator who described how they supported people to update and change their care plans and how this was communicated to staff, they said, “Once I have updated a care plan all staff receive an electronic notification about the change, staff sign to say they understood.” This ensured people received responsive care and changes to their needs were done safely.

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. There were examples of people being supported to access day care facilities in the community and experience social activities. Staff told us they were given the time to support and help people with their diverse needs. For example, one staff member said, “We are encouraged to socialise with people, this is important to their care needs as well as practical support.”

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had individual assessments which accounted for their specific communication requirements. Relatives we spoke with confirmed the provider was open and transparent and quick to respond to requests for information.

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. Care plans contained peoples, and where needed, their relatives feedback. The registered manager undertook competency checks following staff visits and during this process gathered people’s feedback about their experience. This meant the provider had oversight of any developing concerns or frustrations prior to people needing to raise them formally. This meant people’s care remained responsive and people were included throughout their care experience. Annual questionnaires were consistently used, and we saw evidence of people praising the care and support they received.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Care plans clearly detailed the level of support and access needs of people to access services such as other medical professionals like GP’s. Staff understood how and when to seek further support for people related to their health condition. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and what was normal for them, so were able to identify concerns early.

The registered manager and the management team actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes, including people and staff, and tailored their care, and support and treatment in response to this. Everyone we spoke with felt they were treated fairly and equally by the provider and the staff supporting them. Care plans contained goals that people wished to achieve regarding accessing the community and staff had clear guidance and techniques documented to support people to achieve their aims.

At the time of assessment no-one was receiving end of life care, however the registered manager and staff were knowledgeable about compassionate care which maintained dignity and how these skills were essential as people neared the end of life.

The provider had a policy in place and encouraged people to make decisions where needed such as DNACPR’s and ReSPECT forms. Care plans contained details about who people wished to be involved in this care planning if the need arose. DNACPR forms, also known as Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation forms and ReSPECT forms, which stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment are documents that record a person's preferences for their care in emergency situations where they may not be able to communicate their wishes.