Ladyfield 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 75 (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 were person centred and included peoples likes, dislikes and preferences. Care plans included detailed information about past histories which helped staff recognise people’s interests.

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 told us staff understood their needs and assisted them to access other professionals as required. The activity co-ordinator ensured everyone was given the opportunity to access meaningful activities.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was clearly displayed in the entrance of the home and throughout the home at appropriate locations. People felt they had all the information they needed and knew who to ask if they needed anything in addition.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People felt involved in the service and knew how to raise a concern if they needed to. One person said, “I would know who to talk to if I needed to complain.” One relative said, “I have had lots of discussions about [relative’s] care. They [staff] have got this special chair for [relative].” People and relatives were offered opportunities to share their suggestions. For example, in resident and relative meetings and via quality questionnaires.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The home was purpose built and had wide corridors which supported people using wheelchairs. We did not identify any barriers to care and support. People had access to call bells and staff responded in a timely way when people summoned their support.

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. The provider had an equality and diversity policy which set out their desire to treat people fairly.

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 had a section to record end of life care wishes. Some people had spoken about their preferences and these had been recorded. Other people did not wish to speak about this stage of their lives.