Hazelwood 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. The rating has improved from requires improvement to good during this assessment. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. The provider had taken action to ensure care plans contained sufficient information about people’s care and support and these were person centred.

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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Since the previous inspection, the provider had implemented new format care plans, these were comprehensive and provided staff with information of how people wished to be supported. This included information about people's likes and dislikes, things of importance, relationships people wished to maintain to assist with person-centred care.

Care plans reflected people’s current needs and were regularly reviewed. The home had regular and consistent staff which helped provide continuity of care. This made a positive difference to the care and support people received.

Feedback from visiting professionals was positive. They told us the standard of care was good and reported no concerns.

Staff knew the people they were caring for and treated them as individuals.

Staff were knowledgeable about what people liked and what their preferences were and how best to meet them. People had different communication needs and staff tailored communication methods to each individual as appropriate.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Information was available and shared between services as needed to help ensure people's care and treatment needs could be assessed and met. People’s care records showed how people’s care was planned and delivered with continuity, inclusion and a holistic approach to people’s needs.

The home worked well with local GP, District Nurse and other care professionals to help ensure care was responsive to people’s needs. This worked well and helped ensure people’s individual needs were prioritised.

The provider's processes included liaising with other professionals where appropriate and provided continuity of care.

The provider encouraged people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People told us staff listened to their views and acted on feedback. People knew how to voice their opinions or raise complaints and felt free to do so.

During the site visit, we observed staff took the time to communicate and interact with people in the home. People told us care staff understood their needs. Staff were able to effectively communicate with people and understand what they needed.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs and took appropriate action to provide people with effective care and support.

People’s communication needs were documented in their care plan. This provided information about people’s individual needs and included information about how the person communicates and details of how to communicate with them.

During the site visit, staff were hands on, visible and available to people. There was an open-door policy that encouraged people to raise issues so that these could be dealt with efficiently.

The provider encouraged people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People told us staff listened to their views and acted on feedback. People knew how to voice their opinions or raise complaints and felt free to do so.

During the site visit, we observed staff took the time to communicate and interact with people in the home. People told us care staff understood their needs. Staff were able to effectively communicate with people and understand what they needed.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs and took appropriate action to provide people with effective care and support.

People’s communication needs were documented in their care plan. This provided information about people’s individual needs and included information about how the person communicates and details of how to communicate with them.

During the site visit, staff were hands on, visible and available to people. There was an open-door policy that encouraged people to raise issues so that these could be dealt with efficiently.

A system was in place to support people to access health care providers. Information was available to people, staff and care professionals as required.

Staff at the home helped to ensure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People's care records showed they had access to care, support and referrals were made for treatment when they needed.

The home was accessible and had adaptations to support people’s needs.

A system was in place to support people to access health care providers. Information was available to people, staff and care professionals as required.

Staff at the home helped to ensure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People's care records showed they had access to care, support and referrals were made for treatment when they needed.

The home was accessible and had adaptations to support people’s needs.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Information was available about people's religion and cultural preferences if this support was required.