Ogilvy Court

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

We assessed 7 quality statements in the responsive key question. The service took a person-centred approach to providing care. Staff were attentive and responsive to people’s needs. The provider made referrals to other health care professionals regularly and as required. This helped to ensure people’s needs were met. People and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews. Feedback about the service was very positive from other health care professionals.

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.

People and relatives told us the care was of good quality. People told us they had choices, and their wishes and preferences were considered when assessments of needs were carried out.

Staff told us they put people at the heart of everything. Staff knew people’s needs very well.

Staff supported people in a way which was in line with their person-centred care plans. People were treated well and were clearly at the heart of the service. Staff understood people’s care needs very well.

People and relatives told us that care was provided by the team as a joint effort. Care was provided by a well-co-ordinated team.

Staff told us that it was very important to ensure people’s care needs were recorded and notes were detailed. This meant that if for example if a person needed to go into another care setting such as a hospital. The hospital could rely and act on the information coming from the home. This meant people would have care provided in a seamless way.

Feedback from partners was very positive about the service and partners told us they worked well with the home.

The provider shared several examples of people using other services whilst under the care of the home. There was a clear handover procedure in place to enable people to move between services and continue to have their needs met without disruption.

People and relatives told us they had information provided to them in an accessible way. Relatives told us they had been kept up to date with changes and had opportunities to meet with staff on a regular basis.

Staff told us they gave people and their families information which was tailored to the person. This meant information was in different formats.

The provider provided information in different formats. For example, we saw easy read documents which available should anyone with to have access to them. In one example we noted an interpreter was used as a person’s first language was not English. This meant the person could have a full understanding of the care review process.

People and relatives informed us that there were plenty of opportunities to give their feedback on the quality of care. For example, there was a meeting held for families and people using the service. This meant people or relatives could raise any concerns or make suggestions on how the service should be delivered.

Staff told us they had given people several opportunities to be involved in the service.

Regular meetings were held with people and families. Questionnaires were sent to people and families for their views. Actions were recorded based on these results. Overall, the service was open to feedback and would act on any complaints that were made.

Relatives praised the staff team for making sure their relatives were able to access all health care professionals when needed.

Feedback from staff and leaders was that people had access to a range of health care professionals at any time. This meant people’s health care needs were prioritised.

The provider shared feedback from a range of professionals. All the feedback was positive about the home and how the staff worked on behalf of people using the service. Health care professionals were praiseworthy of the home being proactive when making timely referrals.

The provider had a process of enabling people to access all health care professionals when needs were identified. Through regular monitoring of people’s needs, a range of referrals were made in a timely manner. We evidenced several examples of input from health care professionals in care reviews. This meant people could be confident that their health care needs would be a priority.

People told us they were able to follow their own religious and spiritual beliefs. People’s beliefs were recorded and respected by staff.

Staff told us they did not discriminate against anyone. Staff said they made sure they treated people with respect and were possible try to meet people’s diverse needs.

The provider had a process in place to ensure people had access to health care providers when needed. Staff and leaders understood that people could experience inequalities. The provider actively addressed potential barriers to care, for example, in one case an interpreter was asked to support the care planning and review process as the person did not speak any English. This meant they could be fully involved in their care and support.

Some people and relatives we spoke with told us they had discussed their future care needs. In some cases, this was referred to as their end-of-life care plans.

Staff informed us that they always asked people about their future. Staff said it was important to have conversations about any life changes including end-of-life plans.

The provider had a clear procedure for advanced decision making and an end-of-life policy. People’s care records evidenced that they had been given information on end-of-life care. Staff had been trained in how to provide end-of-life care.