Ann Challis

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 service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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 service 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 said they had been involved in agreeing their care plans and were kept up to date with any changes in people’s support needs. A relative said, “We talked through [Name’s] needs, what they were going to do and [Name’s] background; the staff have a good grasp of their character. We have reviewed the care plan since they moved in.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff worked well with external services. For example, chiropodists and a hairdresser regularly visited the home to support people.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, people’s communication needs were recorded in their care plans. Staff communicated effectively with people. Relatives said communication with the home was good, with 1 saying, “Staff keep me informed if anything changes, they are very good.”

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Relatives said they were able to raise any questions or concerns with the manager or management team and these would be addressed straight away. A relative told us, “I would speak to 1 of the managers, if I have a question. They are open to you talking to them, answering questions and doing anything to help.” Relative surveys were available, although the response had not been large. The manager said they were going to send a survey to all relatives rather than asking relatives to complete them when they visited the home. Any issues or suggestions made in the surveys had been followed up by the management team.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, the home was accessible. Medical professionals told us staff identified any issues early so prompt actions could be taken.

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. For example, staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people. The manager ensured the healthcare needs of those living with dementia were fully considered and met.

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 and their families were involved in planning how they would like to be cared for at the end of their lives, including if they did not want to receive care to allow them a dignified death.