Ivy Court

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.

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 71 (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. Whilst the care environment was homely and dementia-friendly, we did observe, on the day of inspection, care was not always person centred. One person had to stay in bed until after lunch because staff did not have time to get them up for the day. We shared this information with the management team so they could take appropriate action to mitigate the risk of this happening again.

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. Staff knew people they cared for and there were good links with local GP practice and community nursing teams. Information was shared appropriately with the GP practice so care and support was joined up.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There was clear signage around the home so people and visitors knew how to get to lounges and rooms. We observed a number of people reading newspapers to keep up with current affairs.

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. Meetings took place with residents and relatives. People’s experiences and views were listened to and action was taken where appropriate. Staff meetings for each service delivery area took place where information and updates were shared and discussed. A family member told us, “They do have meetings for family members to give their opinion. Communication is very good.”

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People’s care plans showed that people were referred to health and care professionals when required. One person told us, “A doctor has been here when I have needed it, so I can't complain.” Another person told us, “There is a doctor who visits. I haven't needed to see him though.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Complaints and compliments were gathered and reviewed by the management team. Complaints were responded to appropriately. People told us what they would do if they had any concerns. One told us, “I would speak to [the registered manager]. I know they would do their best to sort anything.” Another person said, “I would speak to [the registered manager] if I had any concerns.”

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 evidenced discussions had taken place about end-of-life care and support. Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms were in place which summarised personalised recommendations for people’s clinical care in a future emergency.