The Reeds

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

In some cases people’s freedom of movement around their home was restricted and was not monitored or reviewed. The minimalistic nature of some people’s apartments, assessed for their safety, had not been regularly reviewed.

This service scored 89 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives we spoke with told us people’s care was tailored to their individual needs. One relative said, “The care is definitely person-centred. When [Name] moved in they were overweight, unhealthy, had poor skin, wore continence pads and was not in a good place mentally. Now he is lean, has no acne, looks after himself, his anxiety has reduced and he can concentrate and focus on a jigsaw.” The relative credited this improvement to the quality of care provided for the person. Relatives felt they were kept up to date with their loved one's care. A relative said, “We get a weekly report about what [Name] has been up to. We can email any questions we have.” A partner told us, “[The Reeds] seems generally organised when we need to visit the home, and the home managers know people well.”

Staff told us they monitored people’s levels of anxiety on a daily basis and this was reviewed regularly. This helped them to assess if the support provided was meeting people’s needs or if changes were needed to the support plan. Staff told us the care plans accurately described people’s needs and supported staff to provide safe care. Staff told us they were starting to document people’s goals and aims and the support they needed to develop. They confirmed that care plans were regularly reviewed and updated to meet people’s needs.

We saw people were supported on a one to one basis. However, as mentioned in the Safe section of this report people were subject to environmental restrictions that had not been robustly reviewed. For example, the provider had not considered or reviewed care plans following a person being on holiday and not being subjected to the restrictions they had in their home environment. On return there was no consideration to what restrictions they were imposing compared to the holiday with a view to plan, reduce and remove the restrictions.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.