74 Old Ford End

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 requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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 did not always receive person-centred care tailored to their needs. They did not always experience regular support to participate in activities, receive one-to-one support, and have their safety and well-being needs met. Care plans were not always accurate and up to date. For example, when we asked why the kitchen had not been labelled in line with a person's care plan to support their independence, the registered manager told us this was no longer required. Another person's care plan stated they had a medical condition, but this was no longer the case as their condition had improved. However, relatives confirmed they had been involved in care planning and reviews. The registered manager told us they involved people in care planning by sitting and going through care plans with them. Where changes would affect a relative's ability to support a person, they were supported to have an advocate.

There were shortfalls in how the service understood and met people's diverse needs. People were not always getting the one-to-one support they were funded for, and there had been no systems in place to monitor this. This increased risks relating to people having their needs and preferences met and did not promote people having choices around how they spent their time.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, a pictorial care plan was developed with a person to support how they expressed their choices and promoted how staff understood and interacted with them. People had chosen how their rooms would be decorated by staff providing choices in line with their communication needs. Depending on their emotional and cognitive state, a person's care plan reflected how much support they would need.

The service did not always use all available information to capture people's feedback to improve their care. The provider lacked an effective system to review care records and capture feedback from people's daily experiences. Monthly keyworker sessions held with people did not detail how their goals would be achieved or measured. However, relatives told us they could raise concerns and felt confident the registered manager would act if needed. Records showed people were involved in weekly menu planning.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service did not make a referral to an external professional until we highlighted this risk to them. People did not always have access to the one-to-one support they should have received. This meant people had not always experienced equity in access. However, the service was designed to meet people’s mobility needs. For example, handrails had been fitted, the communal bathroom was accessible, and wet rooms were available.

Staff and leaders did not always effectively review information about people to ensure they did not experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Records such as care plans, care notes, and staff schedules showed that care was not being delivered in a way that promoted outcomes by meeting people's needs and preferences. This meant there was an increased risk of people experiencing inequality.

Although people were not approaching the end of their lives, the service worked with people and their relatives to put end of life plans in place in line with their cultural needs, wishes and preferences.