Barrowhill 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 told us staff respected their dignity, privacy, and choices. Relatives told us the provider supported their family member to follow their chosen religion. People told us they did not always feel involved in their care plans, however people said they were confident to raise concerns with staff and the registered manager. Visiting professionals told us the provider was responsive to people’s changing needs and supported people safely. Staff told us how they encouraged people to take part in activities and how they supported people with communication and mobility difficulties to engage in sensory activities.

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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People’s rights and choices were respected. One person said, “They protect my privacy and dignity when they support me.” Relatives told us people continued to be supported to follow their interests and religious preferences. One relative said, “[My family member] follows a Catholic faith. Their faith has always been important to them. The Priest from Uttoxeter comes in to see [my family member] at least once a month, the Priest brings them communion.” Another relative told us their family member's preferences was respected when requesting a certain gender of staff during personal care.

Staff told us about a prayer room available for them and people who chose to use it. Staff told us about people’s preferences, sexuality, and religious needs. The registered manager showed us and discussed plans of an open day where members of the community and relatives would be invited to attend.

Visiting professionals told us the provider was responsive to people’s needs. One visiting professional said, “The provider communicates effectively with my service. They are responsive to people's needs.” Another visiting professional told us, “The care team are all responsive, stopping what they are doing to focus their time and attention towards the person who needs their time and attention at that moment.”

Care plans evidenced people’s specific needs and outlined people’s cultural preferences. Display materials were seen around the home to promote inclusion. For example, pictures were displayed on the walls explaining everyone is welcome into the home and a LGBTQ(+) flag was on display. LGBTQ(+) is an acronym for people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and non-binary. The provider celebrated international women’s day; we reviewed photographs taken from the day of celebration.

We observed staff providing support to people in the communal areas of the service. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We observed staff adapting their communication with people, speaking slowly and giving people time to respond. People told us staff spent time with them and engaged in activities. We observed staff speaking kindly with people and telling them about what was happening and asking their permission before engaging with any care tasks.

Staff told us they tried to include people as much as possible. One staff member showed us an electronic device called RITA (Reminiscence Interactive Therapy Activities). This device is aimed at improving communication and reducing stress for people living with dementia. The staff member showed us how the device worked, and we observed 1 person using the device with support from staff. The staff member told us how this device aided communication and interaction with people.

Care plans identified people’s communication needs, and how these are met in terms of sight and hearing impairments. Picture cards were used to display information on boards, including daily menus and details about activities going on in the home. Dementia clocks were used to display the date and times. These clocks are considered to be easier to read for people experiencing cognitive difficulties.

People told us they did not always feel involved, one person said, “I’ve not been asked what I would like to do, I would like more to do.” Another person said, “My care is how I like it, but I don’t feel involved with my care plan.” We fed this back to the provider, who responded to our feedback and held a resident’s meeting and shared their plans to hold these meetings regularly in the future. People told us they felt confident to raise concerns with staff and the registered manager. One person said, “All the staff are approachable, so I would tell them if I was worried about anything.” Relatives told us they felt listened. One relative told us, “I do think the home is well led. Since the last inspection the staff have been working harder on what needs improving. They [staff and registered manager] all work as a team to make the place what it is. We’ve had at least 3 relatives’ meetings since the last inspection to try and sort out the issues.”

Staff told us how they adapted their communication with people, one staff member told us, “You need to speak calmy and slowly when speak to [person’s name]. Make sure you give them time to respond.” Staff told us how one person with communication difficulties communicated through writing on a board and another person used picture cards to help them understand meal options. Another staff member said, “We ask people if they are happy or if they have concerns, it’s important to reassure people that we are there to support them and listen to them.”

Advocacy services were available for people living in the home. We reviewed examples of their use and discussed how they benefitted people. We reviewed minutes from meetings with relatives, where relatives were invited to share their views of the service. The provider gathered feedback from people living in the home using flash surveys. Care review meeting minutes were evident showing how the provider shared relevant information with people, relatives, and professionals. The complaints procedure was accessible to visitors and people. We reviewed examples of compliments and complaints received. Complaints were followed up and lessons learnt recorded and shared with the staff team. For example, one complaint resulted in the provider adopting the hospital passport scheme. This is an important document which is taken to hospital with the person. The provider told us how successful this had been. Surveys were sent to relatives and staff to gather their feedback into the service.

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.

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

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.