High Lea 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

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.

The provider did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People did not always experience person-centred care. People’s care plans did not reflect their physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

People had not been consulted about how they wished their care to be provided and their likes and dislikes.

People had not been given the opportunity to provide feedback about the care they received.

We spoke with the management team about the lack of person-centred care and clear guidance for staff on how to support people in a person-centred way. The management team stated they were completing immediate care plan reviews and would include people and their families where appropriate.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

There was limited feedback from people regarding person care provision, integration and continuity. However, our observations and review of people’s care was not joined up, flexible or supportive of their choices.

There was a lack of systems in place to ensure the most up to date information about peoples need was communicated to staff. Care plans and risk assessments for people had not been reviewed and contained out of date information

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People could not be assured that the home would meet their communication needs as these had not always been assessed in their plans of care.

We did, however, speak to a person who was using a communication tool that the manager had given them, as they were struggling to communicate whilst waiting for treatment for their hearing. This was effective in helping the person.

The manager confirmed they the home was able to supply information in large print or other accessible formats.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There was limited feedback from people about listening to and involving people. However, our review of records lacked evidence of their involvement in the care planning and review processes and there were no records of any resident or relatives' meetings for over 12 months.

The home had not used feedback surveys to obtain the views of people using the home or their friends and relatives.

We discussed this with the provider who said that they had used meetings and surveys in the past but had not done so recently. After the inspection we were shared results of a survey that the provider had carried out after our conversation.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People and relatives told us staff supported people to access health care services. Staff understood people had a right to receive the care and support that met their specific individual needs and could describe how they did this. Health and social care professionals told us they were involved in people’s care when required.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

There was limited feedback from people about equity in experiences and outcomes. However, our review of records evidenced a lack of clear planning of people’s care and expected outcomes.

Management did not ensure people were placed at the centre of everything they did. They did not work together with people to support them to achieve good outcomes.

People were not 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.

There was limited feedback from people about planning for the future. However, our review of records showed people were not given the opportunity to plan for their future.

Management did not provide people with an opportunity to discuss or plan their end of life wishes.

Systems and processes were ineffective in ensuring people were supported to make informed decisions and plan for the future.

We discussed the lack of consultation and plans for people’s future wishes with management who said they would consult with people and include this in their review of people care plans.