Red Gables

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 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 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 received care that was personal to them. One relative told is, "What a difference we see now, [relatives] life is pretty much normal, [relative] goes out and does things ordinary people of [relatives] age does, and [relative] finally enjoys life." Staff used person-centred planning tools and approaches to discuss and plan with people how to reach their goals and aspirations. One staff member told us, “Just because [person] is non-verbal they can still make a decision using pictures, ways of communication to pick food or activities etc.” This had a positive impact on people, and ensured people were able to be fully involved in their care, communicating their needs, wants and wishes.

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 with other professionals to make sure people’s needs were met. Records viewed evidenced referrals to professionals were made when required. One professional told us “They share information when requested and are happy to co-operate when asked for information.”

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Care plans viewed provided details on people's communication needs. The service supported people to express their views and offered choices tailored to individual people using a communication method appropriate to that person.

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. There were improvements since the last inspection. Key worker meetings were being undertaken and people were supported to express their views and be involved in the running of their home. Relatives told us they felt involved. One relative told us, “I do receive on regular intervals questionnaires, but best thing is to talk to manager or carers. I did see her, she listened and helped me out. She seems approachable and easy to talk but very much hands on and will sort it if she can.”

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. One professional told us, “I have seen them renovate rooms and change residents rooms based on their needs, e.g. if they need a shower/wet room or [move further] away from the road if they are sensitive to noise.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff and management advocated on behalf of people to ensure they led a full life. For example, 1 professional told us the service communicated with commissioners when additional support hours were needed to ensure people received the support they required.

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. There were processes in place to support people to plan for the future. Support focused on people’s quality of life outcomes. People’s outcomes were regularly monitored and reviewed. At the time of the assessment the service was not supporting anyone at end of life. The service was in the process of supporting people to put end of life plans in place.