Gorton Mill 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 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 and their relatives said they had been involved in agreeing their care plans and were kept up to date with any changes in their support needs. Care plans generally reflected people’s needs, however, 1 had not been updated as the local authority had not reviewed the person’s support needs and updated their own assessments. We discussed this with the registered manager who said they would ensure the care plans were updated as soon as people’s support need changed and then liaise with the local authority.

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. The service worked well with the commissioning teams to ensure people’s care needs were known and met when they moved to Gorton Mill House or developed support needs when already living there.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Relatives said they liked being able to access the electronic system to view the daily notes and care plan for their relative. Some relatives thought some staff used the same phrases for each visit rather than fully reflecting what had been done during each call. People’s communication needs were identified. We were told some people struggled to understand some staff due to their accents.

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. Partners said the service was responsive to any concerns raised. Most relatives felt the service acted on any concerns they had. However, a minority of relatives said issues were initially resolved before they re-occurred. We discussed this with the registered manager who said they would investigate if there were any recurring concerns being raised. No formal complaints had been received by the service. An annual survey was used to gather feedback from people using the service. We saw this had been positive for the last 2 years. Any issues raised in the survey were followed up.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, anyone living in the extra care scheme could access the Gorton Mill House support if they developed support needs.

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. For example, staff completed training in equity and diversity. All people living at the extra care scheme were able to go to the monthly wellbeing hub to monitor their health.

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 wishes for their future care were recorded.