Danescourt

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 71 (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 involved people in decisions about their care and responded to changes in their needs. Staff promoted person-centred care, offering choice and respecting individual preferences, and demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported.
However, this was not consistently reflected in care records. Care records were not always person-centred, accurate, or up to date, and differences between printed and electronic records meant staff may not have had access to the most current information.
 

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 was good continuity of care at Danescourt and there was a low turnover of staff with a stable staff team. Staff communicated well with external health and social care professionals to support people’s needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
All people living at the home were able to communicate verbally. Staff knew people well and understood how people understood information. For example, where people needed time to process information.
 

The provider enabled people to share feedback, raise concerns, and contribute to decisions about their care. Staff involved people in discussions about changes and acted on feedback.
People told us they knew how to make a complaint and felt confident speaking to staff and the registered manager, who they described as responsive. We observed staff supporting a person who was unhappy with a purchase, explaining when and how to return it to the shop. Regular meetings were held with people to ensure their views were heard, recorded, and responded to.
 

The provider ensured people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when required.
Leaders demonstrated a clear understanding of how to support access to specialist services, including referrals to external professionals such as mental health services and speech and language therapists. People attended both routine and condition-specific health appointments, and staff supported them to attend and, where possible, advocate for themselves.
 

Staff and leaders considered people’s individual needs and aimed to tailor care and support. However, the approach to medicines was not person-centred. Staff us that people who required medicines had to return to the service for administration, which placed a unnecessary restriction on people’s freedom. This limited people’s independence and opportunities to take part in activities and had the potential to negatively impact their experiences and outcomes. While staff had received equality and diversity training and were aware of potential barriers, these restrictions meant the provider had not fully considered how to support people in a way that promoted choice, inclusion, and equal access to opportunities.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. At the time of this inspection visit no one was receiving end of life care. Care records reviewed showed a level of detail around people’s wishes and preferences and through 1:1 meeting with people, staff had sought people’s views on any preferences for areas such as activities in the future.