Delves Court Care Home

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

People and relatives felt the care they received was individual to their needs. A relative said, “They review his care with him and me together”.

There were systems in place to monitor and review care, this ensured people were at the centre of this.

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.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure people’s care was regularly reviewed and updated. The provider ensured there were systems in place to share this information or changes with staff so people could receive consistent care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information was provided to people in a format they could understand when needed. Care plans reflected the levels of support, and the ways people chose to communicate and how information should be made available to them.

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 listened to and involved with their care and knew how to complain. One person said, “I am involved with my care they ask me, and we talk about it in meetings.” Another person said, “I’ve never made a complaint, but if I needed to, I would. I would go to the manager; she would listen to me”.

The registered manager explained the survey they completed with people to obtain feedback; although this year’s survey had not yet been finalised, they showed us a ‘you said we did’ board in the home where feedback was sought through resident’s meetings. People had raised concerns about the openness of a shower area in the home, so a curtain had been purchased to ensure it was more enclosed.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

There were processes in place that the registered manager could consider if concerns arose. They had links with external agencies that they could engage with to raise concerns if needed.

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 registered manager was aware of inequalities people living in the home may face and was able to tell us the action they would take when facing these. There were systems in place to consider people’s experiences in care.

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.

End of life care plans were in place for people when needed, they had been completed with people and those important to them, when they wished to. These had considered people’s choices and preferences during this time.