Castleman 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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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 service 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 told us staff knew them and their likes and dislikes well. We observed many individual interactions with people and staff, offering choices and supporting preferences. The manager told us the service was “being supported by the provider to review and improve all care plans so they are more person-centred.” On day two of our assessment, we saw some care plans had been updated to include relevant changes to people’s health conditions.

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 told us they could access the care they required and felt confident they could ask for support from staff. This included having staff support to see their doctor or the visiting nurse. One person told us, “The carers tell me, 'don't forget this one' and 'check you've had this one' they ask if I want to see my doctor.” Care records showed treatment plans from various health and social care professionals following health appointments had been updated. This meant staff were able to support people using the most up to date guidance.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff understood people’s communication needs and informed us they were able to provide information in a way people understood by following communication preferences set out in individual care plans. Castleman House met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

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. People told us they knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to and were confident it would be taken seriously by the manager. The service’s complaints policy was on display throughout the home and shared in residents’ meetings. Systems were in place to ensure people could feedback on the care they received, and we were assured from speaking to people this feedback was acted upon. One person told us, “If you don’t like what’s on the menu, it’s not a problem! You can ask for something else and they accommodate you. The food is lovely here.”

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were able to move throughout the home freely, with reasonable adjustments to remove barriers for people living with dementia. The provider acted on feedback to improve communication and relationships with professionals, which prevented delay in people accessing care. A heath and social care professional told us, “Overall there has been a significant improvement in communication and rapport from the home in the last year.”

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. Staff had access to various ways of raising concerns about treatment which discriminated against people. Staff training, guidance and monitoring meant staff were consistently reminded of their responsibilities to always ensure inclusivity. Policies and procedures underpinned working practices within the home, and this was supported by training and ongoing monitoring.

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. Staff used screening tools to monitor people’s health and identify pain. This information was escalated to health and social care professionals working in partnership with the service to deliver care in line with the person’s wishes and ensure they were able to spend their last days as they wished. The provider had received accreditation for good practices in end of life care. The service had an end of life champion, who was a dedicated member of staff who had received additional training and guidance. This meant they were able to support end of life care within the service and provide support for people, their relatives and staff. Their responsibilities had included reviewing the care given by staff to ensure it was in accordance with the persons wishes and best it could be.