Herondale

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

Staff were responsive to people’s needs, likes and dislikes. They knew people well, their abilities and personalities. Some people could access the community independently for social and leisure opportunities, whilst others needed support to do so. Some information was available in accessible formats so that people could understand and make informed decisions.

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.

People had care from staff who were focussed on meeting their needs. A person said, “I am happy here, my [family member] brings me in things to do and helps me get started.” A family member told us, “Staff get on well, they come across as laid back and [person’s name] respects the boundaries. They are quite firm but fair and that helps [person’s name] with managing their day-to-day life.”

People’s care plans, whilst written in a person-centred style, did not always reflect their up to date physical, mental, emotional and social needs or risks to their safety. This included people at risk of choking, those who smoked and those whose mobility needs had changed. We made the registered manager aware of our findings and they agreed to address the inconsistencies we found. The staff worked in partnership with people in their day to day lives encouraging and supporting people where needed. Staff used people’s names and spoke to them kindly and with respect. Staff supported people to monitor and adapt their goals to ensure they remained meaningful and relevant to them.

Support for people was coordinated, with input from external professionals where practical health or social care support was needed. Most people understood their condition, care and treatment options, including any associated risks and benefits and the advice provided. People’s care plans, whilst written in a person-centred style did not always reflect their up to date physical, mental, emotional and social needs or risks to their safety. This included people at risk of choking, those who smoked and those whose mobility needs had changed. We made the registered manager aware of our findings and they agreed to address the inconsistencies we found.

People knew who was supporting them and they were settled as there was continuity of staff. Staff photographs were on the wall by the office so people could recognise them.

Staff supported people to access community services. Staff were organised and responsive in managing their time with people within the existing rota arrangements. Agency staff were not being used.

Professionals were positive about the continuity and consistency of care provided to people living at Herondale.

The registered manager delivered, and co-ordinated services people needed and considered their needs and preferences, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and those at most risk of a poorer experience of care.

Information about people was written in an easy way within their care plans which they could read at any time. People’s communication needs were recorded to ensure staff knew their preferred way of communicating, but this did not include any specific information related to accessible information.

Staff could tell us about people’s level of understanding written or verbal information. Staff said they helped people with understanding written instructions or appointment letters, so they did not miss important times and dates. People could read and understand standard text, and no one currently required information in different accessible formats.

The registered manager told us they were not aware of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) which sets out a specific approach to identifying, recording, flagging, sharing and meeting the information needs of people. They told us they would make themselves aware of the standard and discuss this with people in their reviews to ensure information was always accessible to them.

People were able to share feedback, ideas and raise concerns and issues about their care and life in the service. A person told us, “I have no complaints at all.” People were invited to share their views in 6 monthly meetings to talk about the service. In the notes of one meeting, we read that, “[People’s names] were singing along to a choice of songs and [person’s name] was very happy and had uncontrollable laughter.”

Staff did not routinely involve people in the day to day around the house tasks such as cleaning and cooking, except for one person who we were told chose to dust the lounge every day. Family members told us they were not routinely asked or involved in giving their views of the service.

There was a complaints process in place and the registered manager told us they did not have any complaints outstanding. The views of people from the half yearly meetings were listened to. For example, people said they needed more exercise, and the provider had purchased a walking machine for people to use to keep fit.

People had equal access to health and care services when they needed it.

Leaders and staff are alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support, whether this is from wider society, within organisational processes and culture or from individuals.

People were able to access a range of services, such as health, mental health and social care. The registered managers worked with partners to ensure people had the right service when needed. A professional said, “Staff know [person’s name] very well and are good at letting me know when support is needed.”

The provider had systems in place so that people could access care, treatment and support when they needed to. Information about people’s needs and choices were accessible to staff for reference, although some aspects of the care plan were not completed fully and up to date.

People were treated individually in the service and their care, treatment and support was appropriately managed. This included people’s freedom to access the community and the risks this entailed, whilst for others, protecting their safety and ensure any restrictions did not infringe their rights. However, barriers were not always removed to provide everyone with equal access and opportunity. For example, we were made aware of one person whose mobility had deteriorated and they could not walk very far. In discussion, staff told us a wheelchair had been considered for them to enable them to go out, but this had not been actioned without any clear reason. This person’s access to opportunities were being denied.

Staff were not always clear on how barriers placed on people denied them of equal opportunities, access and choice as the above example shows. However, staff provided reasons for decisions being made and actions taken which restricted people in their freedoms. These included going out alone, smoking and use of money. Staff were patient and reassuring in helping people to remember their agreement to this. Staff we spoke with had not experienced discrimination in the workplace

The provider had systems in place to protect peoples’ rights. Staff had completed training in equality and diversity to better understand and respond to people’s needs and ensure their rights were upheld. However, ways in which people’s equality of opportunity and quality of life was recorded could be improved as we did not see examples of people achieving their goals and aspirations.

We did not discuss this topic with people directly at the service during the assessment. We saw some people’s care plans included their wishes and preferences and funeral arrangements.

Staff had received training in caring for people at the end of their life. However, the registered manager told us they would access professional specialist support as people required it. A professional told us, “Staff liaise with me, and we work well together to support [person’s name] with their health condition. They are supporting [person’s name] to live each day as it comes.”

The registered manager told us they would have sensitive conversations with people, their representatives and families when people were ready to discuss their wishes and preferences. Any information and decisions would be incorporated into their care plans when required.