Figham 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 service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans did not show how people or their relatives had been involved in care planning, other than at the initial pre-assessment. There was a mixed response from people and relatives about whether they had been involved in people’s care planning and reviews. However, one relative told us, “I am included, it’s so important I am involved.” Records of people’s daily care were generic and were not person centred.

The service 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’s care was co-ordinated across a range of health and care providers. The service worked closely with all interested professionals and implemented their advice into the care provided.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were known and understood. Staff communicated with people in the manner they wished that best met their needs. Care plans contained information about adaptations people may need, for example, hearing aids and directed staff to ensure these were worn and operational.

The service made it easy for 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. Information was easily accessible for people, should they wish to see it, or raise a complaint. Staff told us they could share feedback with the manager. The service had undertaken people, relative and staff surveys to understand how to improve the home. The cook spoke with people every month to ensure menus and food was reflected people’s preferences.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had equity in accessing the support they received. The building had been adapted to ensure it was accessible for all.

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 had equity in experience and outcomes from the support they received. For example, ensuring the healthcare needs of those living with dementia were fully considered and met.

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’s care plans contained information about their advanced wishes, where people had wanted to discuss these. Staff worked with specialist teams to ensure people received the appropriate level of support at the end of their life.