The Hall

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

People did not receive person-centred care. The principles of RCRSRC were not met; People’s care plans contained information relating to other people living at the service and care plans were basic and generic. Staff did not have the skills to support people with their complex needs in line with their individual preferences. People did not have positive outcomes living at The Hall, and there were no effective processes in place to ensure people had equity in their experiences and outcomes. We found one breaches of the legal regulations in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People had not been involved in planning their care and feeding back their views and choices. Care plans did not demonstrate people had been involved in creating or reviewing them when people's needs changed. People's care plans were not reviewed regularly, or when people's needs changed. People did not receive person-centred care, because staff lacked the knowledge and skills to be able to support them in a positive way. Relatives told us staff did not understand their loved one, and could not distract or de-escalate them when they became distressed.

Staff did not provide people with personalised, proactive and co-ordinated support. People did not have sensory assessment and support plans. Although some staff told us that they supported people with person-centred care, we observed staff to provide a lack of support to people, with little engagement. There was a lack of meaningful activities for people to engage in, and people appeared bored.

People did not always receive person-centred care specific to their needs. The principles of RCRSRC were not followed. Staff did not support people through recognised models of care and treatment for people with a learning disability or autistic people. Staff were unaware for example, about restraint reduction plans, positive behaviour support plans were poor and not followed by staff.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Relatives told us they had not been involved in their loved ones care plans. Relatives told us that people were not engaged in meaningful activities.

Although staff told us they promoted equality for the people they supported, we found this was not always the case. People had not been supported to ensure their human rights were upheld; people had been unlawfully restrained and people's capacity had not been assessed.

Processes to ensure that people’s care plans fully reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 were not effective. Care plans had not been reviewed since 2021 and did not promote equality or uphold people's human rights.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.