Minstead House

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

We found that although for some people using the service the provider had taken steps to improve the quality of care and had been responsive regarding promoting independence and building confidence, this was not consistent. Records were not always robust to reflect current support needs and to guide staff. When the providers support team made recommendations, these were not always acted upon in a timely way to ensure the service was responsive to peoples identified needs.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Overall relatives we spoke with felt that their loved ones were supported in a person centred way that met their individual needs. However, one relative raised concern that unless they developed an activity plan and booked activities, they were not confident this would take place. People and relatives were not actively involved in face to face meeting to discuss peoples on-going support needs and to develop meaningful goals and aspirations

Staff members told us how they supported people as individuals and clearly understood their support needs. However, we found this guidance was not always reflected in peoples support plans. Staff told us about peoples likes, dislikes and preferred routines and how they supported them to be able to maintain these.

We saw that people were supported in a way which was in response to their known support needs and wishes, although for some people there was a lack of guidance for known responses and needs. However, we were advised by health professionals that they had recommended for 1 person that they have a ratio of 2 females and 1 male staff to support due to maintaining their dignity. We found this was not occurring on a regular basis. The registered manager told us that it was hard to achieve. Senior management told us that the person responded better to male staff members. This had not been risk assessed and included in the persons care plan. We also found that when additional guidance was provided by Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) practitioner, we found that these had not been actioned when we returned a week later. The provider told us they were in the process of reviewing alternative arrangements

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

Relatives told us their loved ones received timely care and treatment and felt they were supported in an equal and inclusive way. Although relatives told us they were able to give their views there was no formal structure in place such as service user and relative meetings. Relatives told us they had not been asked for feedback on the service for a long period of time.

The registered manager and staff told us how they had received training and worked with people to minimise the risk of discrimination and inequality, in all aspects of their daily lives. This included accessing the community and health services. One staff member told us how 'one cup water boilers' had been purchased to enable people to be able to make drinks themselves in a safer, risk assessed approach. Staff and the registered manager were unable to provide evidence of communication methods used to enable people to communicate and provide feedback consistently and effectively at all times.

Support plans did not detail clear goals and aspirations. We saw that these were very generic and did not have specific goals to help people gain more independence and feel a sense of achievement to be proud of. The registered manager told us about the plans for setting goals and aspirations which they had been working on, but these had yet to be implemented. We were told by a health professional the provider had been slow in accessing additional training and support which had been offered to help staff meet the persons support needs and accessing a specialist dental service for a person who was experiencing tooth pain. In addition, they felt that responses to requests for information sharing was poor and multiple requests for the same information had to be made prior to it being shared.

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.