Bonhomie Sarisbury Green

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

The processes in place did not promote equality or ensure people were not discriminated against. Care plans and risk assessments lacked detail and guidance for staff to enable them to respond to distressed behaviours in a positive way which protected people’s rights and dignity. Improvements were needed to demonstrate that people were empowered to give their views and be involved in making decisions about their care and future at every stage and to ensure care plans were co-produced with people and those important to them.

This service scored 68 (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.

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.

The processes in place did not promote equality or ensure people were not discriminated against. For example, people did not have health action plans. Health actions plans are an important tool that helps ensure people are supported to access health care in a way that promotes their wellbeing and removes barriers to them attending appointments. Care plans and risk assessments lacked guidance for staff to enable them to respond to distressed behaviours in a positive way which protected people’s rights and dignity. One person was supported 1:1 by staff. Their care plan gave no information about how this level of support was to be balanced with the person’s right to privacy. There was a similar lack of information about how staff were to support 1 person to spend his money ‘wisely’ whilst avoiding ‘unnecessary items’. There was no evidence the finance plan had been co-produced with the person, supporting their independence, and helping them to understand their choices and rights.

The provider told us people were involved in their monthly key worker reviews and this was an opportunity for people to share their views.

People told us they felt able to give their views and felt listened to. For example, 1 person said, “[Registered manager’s name] is the manager he usually listens, and the issues raised and most of them are resolved… The staff listen to me and sometimes new staff who are on duty will get a member of staff who knows me well.” We received mixed feedback from relatives about whether the service sought out and listened to feedback about their family member’s care. For example, 1 relative said, “I think the staff are kind and caring they only listen to me at the door when collecting medication, they never give me a hand over of how his weeks been.”

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.