City Gate House Also known as Head Office

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they made decisions about their care. The people supported were able to give their consent to their care and were able to sign their plans themselves or with support from staff to say they understood and agreed to them. Staff spoke empathetically of people in their care and the importance of having meaningful, supportive relationships with the people using the service.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice. The provider worked hard to fully understand the preferences of people they supported. People were supported to attend a range of medical appointments and records were kept, detailing the outcomes of each visit.

The provider supplied some information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider shared their ‘service user guide’ with us, which tells a person about the things provided to them. The document was detailed, and efforts had been made to use accessible information within it. However, the document outlined what staff would do for a person and did not describe how staff would involve people in aspects of their care. Information about people’s rights was displayed in the hallway within the home, outlining the provider’s commitment to the people supported.

The provider made efforts for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. These efforts were well documented in the systems they had in place. The provider sought the views of people they supported, their families and other professionals involved to give them feedback on levels of satisfaction. We saw a lot of positive feedback from the people supported and their families which indicated people were satisfied with the services they received.

The provider made sure people could access the care and support they needed. The manager told us about the importance of developing good working relationships with local authorities and health professionals, which helped to ensure people received access to relevant services to support good care.

The provider actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience and worked with other professionals to achieve the right outcomes. For example, staff were trained in a wide range of health related matters that helped them attain the best possible health outcomes for people.

The provider had discussions with people about future plans and, in particular, end of life care. We saw the provider had broached the subject with one person they supported, and it was evident that, whilst the provider had acknowledged it, the person did not want to discuss it and those views were respected.