Apple Tree House Residential Care Home Limited

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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

People received responsive, personalised care and support that met their needs and reflected their preferences. People were empowered to develop their own care and support plans with assistance from staff and these were reviewed and updated regularly, when people achieved goals and when their needs or aspirations changed.

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.

People were in control over who came into their home. People told us about how well they got on with the staff and their housemates, and how disagreements and differences within the household were thoughtfully resolved . Staff understood the needs and challenges faced by autistic people and people with a learning disability.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Support plans and records were available in different ways to support people’s communication needs. The provider met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. One person had a hearing impairment and staff had learnt sign-language to communicate with them. Many of the people living at the service had developed a basic understanding of sign-language which meant this person was included in group activities and chat.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Each person had a key worker and had developed a close relationship with that staff member . People were supported to access independent advocates, should they wish. Regular residents’ meetings took place. People considered themselves part of a group and were supported and encouraged to discuss with their peers all aspects of the service. Information about how to complain was shared appropriately with people and their families. The service had not received any formal complaints since our last inspection visit.

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

The provider had a clear ethos for the service based on human rights, anti-discrimination and equity principles, and staff and people who used the service understood these.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People told us they were not discriminated against, and staff worked to ensure that reasonable adjustments were in place for people who needed them to live a fulfilling life and participate in the running of the service.

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.

People were supported to understand and make decisions about their future care and support, including those relating to potential medical and psychological needs and their wishes for the end of their life. Some people and their relatives did not want to discuss end of life planning. Where this was the case, the provider had documented the decision and had established what steps would be taken if there was an emergency. The provider had made plans to revisit the subject in the future.