Hylton Grange

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

This was the first rated inspection of the service. Care was personalised and responsive to people’s individual needs and interests. People’s needs were regularly reviewed, and staff worked in close partnership with people, relatives and relevant professionals to make changes. Staff supported people to access services they may require, and advocated, with other advocates, if necessary, to ensure any additional care and treatment needs were assessed and met. The building was purpose-built and was accessible and equipped with aids and adaptations to accommodate people with a high level of need, including physical dependency. There was a high level of awareness of and adherence to equality and human rights legal requirements in the service. Staff received training in equality and diversity and person-centred approaches to help them recognise the importance of treating people as unique individuals with different and diverse needs. Guidance was available in people's care plans which documented how people communicated. Information was accessible and was made available in a way to promote the involvement of the person. Records gave guidance about people’s daily routines if they could not tell staff themselves. People were consulted individually, and meetings took place with people and families to obtain feedback about people's experiences. Information was available about people's religion and cultural preferences if this support was required.

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.

People and their relatives said the care provided was safe, person-centred and effective. Their comments included, "I’m going to work in a charity shop, when it's arranged", "I've been supported by staff to work at the stables", "I have done painting, I asked the activities lady if I could paint with a brush in my mouth. I did it and I’m going to do it again" and, "We grow vegetables in the garden and we made soup with some of them."

Staff told us some people liked to be involved when their support plans were written and reviewed. Others were less interested and that was their choice. But all had the option to be involved if they wanted to.

Care and support was personalised and responsive to people’s individual needs and interests. There was lots of proactive, positive staff interaction and engagement. Staff spent time with people, not just when they were providing personal care and support. Throughout the service there was a relaxed, friendly atmosphere. There were quiet areas, if people wanted a less busy environment. Staff followed people’s support plans to ensure they received personalised care in the way they wanted it. Staff were flexible in responding to people’s changing needs and ensured people had a say when any decisions were made.

People and their relatives told us they received coordinated and consistent care, from staff who knew their needs well.

Staff told us they monitored people’s well-being and sought medical advice where necessary.

Professionals were positive about the individualised care people received.

People’s care records showed how people’s care was planned and delivered with continuity, inclusion and an holistic approach to people’s needs. Detailed healthcare plans were in place covering people's physical and mental health needs. Records showed staff supported people to maintain and improve their health. Where necessary, people were referred to community health care professionals including GPs, consultants, dentists, opticians, and speech and language therapists.

People were provided with information in a format that helped meet their needs to keep them informed and to assist with decision-making. Menus and activities were displayed in pictorial format, to help keep people informed.

Staff told us how they followed people communication support plans to ensure information was provided to them in a way they understood. They gave us example of the different methods of communication people preferred.

The provider ensured information was available to people in a way that met the Accessible information standard. The Accessible Information Standard is a law which aims to make sure people with a disability or sensory loss are given information they can understand, and the communication support they need. People’s communication needs were in their care plans and staff understood these.

People spoke positively of their experiences with staff, managers and the overall service. Relatives were also positive in their feedback, and felt staff empowered their family members. People told us staff listened to their views and acted on feedback. People and their relatives knew how to voice their opinions or raise complaints and felt free to do so.

People were asked to provide feedback in different ways. Staff held meetings with people to gather feedback and to review their needs. The registered manager told us more formal systems of consultation with people, to obtain their feedback, was being planned as occupancy of the service increased. The registered manager also told us about the “Service User Ambassador” scheme where a person from the service, as spokesperson, had a key role in ensuring that those living in the home played an active part in the running of the service and feeding back any concerns of people. This person as ambassador, also fed into meetings with the wider organisational service user ambassador scheme.

Complaints about the service were taken seriously with records kept and outcomes recorded. Learning from complaints was shared so staff could incorporate it into their daily practice.

People and their relatives felt respected and treated equally by the staff. We observed a person asking staff about their medicines and they were offered reassurance and informed the GP would review their medicines.

Staff spoke about people with respect. They were clear they acted to support each person individually and ensured they were reflecting that person's wishes. Staff described how they focused on person-centred approaches and respectful interactions. The ethos of respect was embedded in meetings and reinforcing people's rights within their home.

We received positive feedback from external health and social care professionals regarding the staff’s understanding of people's diverse needs and their efforts to ensure care was joined up. Examples were shared of staff seeking advice, working positively with multi-disciplinary teams, flagging issues quickly and the management team maintaining strong relationships with external health and care professionals to ensure people receive care, support and treatment when they needed it.

People's care records showed they had access to care, support and referrals were made for treatment when they needed it. Care records included information around people's sensory and communication needs. Adapted equipment was available around the home to assist people. Lighting in communal areas and hallways was effective to protect people's safety as they moved around.

People told us the staff actively sought out and listened to information about their experiences and what their aspirations were for the care package. Staff advocated for people and their rights and respected equality and diversity.

Staff knew how to ensure people’s rights were protected and there was an inclusive and supportive atmosphere in the home, no matter what health or care related need people may have. Staff ensured people who could not advocate for themselves had good experience of care.

Policies and procedures were in place in relation to equity, equality and diversity. Feedback and observations supported the fact that staff had implemented learning and a culture had been created of individualised care. People’s care records showed how staff ensured people’s human rights and protected characteristics were included and protected. Care plans included information around people’s identity, things important to them, their wishes and relationships they wanted to maintain.

No one was receiving end of life care, but found staff always discussed whether the care and support delivered needed to remain the same. The service provided re-ablement and rehabilitation and people were supported to become more independent, whatever the level of need and move to more independent living if appropriate.

The registered manager promoted a positive, person-centred culture. The registered manager and staff put people’s needs and wishes at the heart of everything they did.

The provider had ensured policies and procedures were in place around providing care for people reaching the end of their life. Records showed the relevant people would be involved in decisions about a person's end-of-life care choices, if they could not make the decision for themselves, should they reach that point in their life. People’s pre admission assessments and care plans captured people’s preferences about people’s religion and cultural preferences if this support was required.