Cantley 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 provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider 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. Care plans contained information about people’s strengths, likes and dislikes, and how they preferred staff to meet their care needs and wishes. People’s relatives told us staff treated their family members as individuals and care staff knew people well.

The provider 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 had individual care activity plans and were supported and encouraged to participate in a variety of on and off-site activities.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was not always readily available to people. For example, the service had a complaints procedure and a service user guide, but this was kept in the policy and procedure file and was not accessible for people.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. For example, the complaints procedure was not easy to access and there was no evidence that the process had been discussed with people. People were not routinely asked if they had any concerns. The provider had a complaints book to record issues but had never had any concerns raised about the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had individual activity plans and were encouraged to participate in a variety of on and off site activities. Staff ensured people had access to healthcare professionals as required.

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. People were not restricted in any way and were supported to live the life they chose. People’s desired outcomes were documented in their care plans and staff supported them to achieve them.

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. Care plans included a section regarding end of life care. Some people had chosen not to discuss this at this stage. Where people had discussed their end of life care, plans were detailed and specific and included their individual preferences.