Haythorne Place

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

During our assessment of this key question, we found the service tried to make sure people are at the centre of their care and treatment needs. However, some people did not always feel involved in their care planning. People’s dignity was not always maintained, for example when people had to wait for extended periods of time to be supported with basic care needs such as support with personal care or support to eat and drink. Despite the concerns identified at this assessment, scores pulled through from previous assessments in relation to other quality statements under responsive mean that overall this service is still rated as good for providing a responsive service.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Feedback from people and their relatives was mixed. Some people felt they were involved in their care planning and the information recorded about them, however other people told us they were not involved in this.

Some staff told us that people’s preferences and needs were ascertained by speaking to people and through the services internal processes, such as handover records. Some staff were able to tell us detailed information about the people they support. However, some staff also had difficulty in identifying safety issues in relation to people's needs at lunch time when asked by inspectors.

During the inspection we observed people waiting for care and support due to insufficient levels of staff to respond in a timely manner.

Feedback from people and their relatives was mixed in relation to their involvement in planning care. However, people told us they were able to see health professionals and report problems when needed.

Staff knew how to contact professionals If needed and how to support people to attend health related appointments. Some staff were able to tell us detailed information about the people they support. However, some staff also had difficulty in identifying safety issues in relation to people's needs at lunch time when asked by inspectors.

Professionals who visit the service told us that information was not always shared consistently or in a timely manner. Some professionals raised issues about difficulties with contacting the service and about the availability of staff on site to support with professional visits. Some issues were also raised in regard to the accuracy of documented information in peoples care plans.

People's care plans were not always up to date. Inconsistent information was viewed which related to the monitoring of people’s health and care needs. Some plans and risk assessments lacked sufficient detail to ensure that appropriate care was delivered. Staff feedback about people's care needs and people's written records were not always consistent.

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.

Feedback from people and their relatives was mixed. Some people felt they were involved in their care planning and the information recorded about them, however other people told us they were not involved in this. Some people told us activities at the service did not meet their requirements, or that they were unable to access these due to a lack of staff to help them get to activities.

Staff told us they knew how to report incidents and changes in people's needs. However, staff also told us that people had to wait for their needs to be met due to insufficient staffing levels.

Governance systems within the home had failed to ensure that sufficient levels of staff were deployed to ensure people's needs could be met in line with their planned care in a timely manner. Processes at the home had failed to ensure sufficient numbers of staff had completed training in relation to communication, equality and diversity and awareness courses in how to support people with needs such as dementia and learning disabilities.

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.