18 Argyle Road

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

Governance systems were in place to help monitor aspects of the service so that the quality of care provided could be assessed and monitored. Quality assurance systems and processes included audits looking at aspects of the running of the service. Management was well organised and had clear oversight of the home and promoted regular communication and openness. Staff spoke positively about management and felt able to speak up. Management sought feedback from people and relatives. They worked in partnership with others to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service. Management was open and transparent throughout the assessment process and responded to any requests positively.

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’s needs were met in a personalised way. People were empowered to develop their care support plans with staff, their relatives and relevant professionals. These were reviewed and updated regularly.

Staff demonstrated good awareness of people’s individual support needs and preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about what people liked and what their preferences were and how best to meet them. People had different communication needs and staff tailored communication methods to each individual as appropriate. For example, a person was supported to communicate using a non-verbal communication aid.

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.

Relatives told us their family members received continuity of care.

Accurate and up-to-date information was provided in formats that were tailored to people’s individual needs. Staff supported people to communicate by using their preferred method of communication. This included using easy read information cards, picture exchange communication systems (PECS) and Makaton sign language. Support plans and records were recorded in a number of different ways in line with people’s requirements for meaningful communication and decision-making. The provider met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard.

Relatives told us they had the information they needed. They knew who the manager was, who to contact if needed. The manager also advised that they had regular communication with relatives where they were able to provide updates.

Systems were in place to hold confidential information, and the provider had systems to ensure compliance with the UK General Data Protection Regulations (UK GDPR). Service records were kept locked away or password protected on electronic devices. This helped to ensure people’s private and sensitive information was only shared with authorised persons.

Management encouraged people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions.

A complaints poster was on display in the home. The manager confirmed that no formal complaints had been received. The service had a complaints and concerns log to ensure these were recorded, investigated, resolved and lessons had been learned.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs and took appropriate action to help ensure people received effective care and support. Staff received support and training to help them enhance communication with people.

People’s communication needs were documented in their care plan. This provided information about people’s individual needs and included information about how the person communicates and details of how to communicate with them.

Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability. The service had a clear ethos for the home based on diversity, equality and inclusion. The manager made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment when they needed it.

A system was in place to support people to access health care providers. Information was readily available to people, relatives and staff as required.

Feedback from an external health and social care professional indicated that people were supported to access the care and support they needed.

Staff and management 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 their human rights and diversity respected and were treated with compassion by staff. Care plans contained detailed information about people’s spiritual and cultural needs. This helped staff understood people’s specific cultural heritage and spiritual needs and wishes and knew how to protect them from discriminatory behaviours and practices.

The manager confirmed that at the time of the assessment no one was being supported with end-of-life care or in receipt of palliative care. An end-of-life policy was in place.