Valley View Court

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 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.

Care plans showed people likes and dislikes, how they wanted to be supported and what was important to them. People’s care plans had appropriate information for staff to follow and helped give them guidance on how to support people safely. People we spoke with felt their needs were met in a way they liked. One person said, “I feel quite looked after despite being so ill”.

The team supporting people were involved ensuing people’s care plans were updated. Handover meetings included relevant detail to ensure the team were kept informed of people’s care and support. We observed positive interactions and care between staff and people.

People were supported to attend routine or follow up appointments as part of their rehabilitation programme. The home worked closely with people and their relatives to make sure they received care and support to support their recovery. Staff were notified when people’s needs changed so that they could continue to provide person-centred care. Any changes to care and support were reflected on the app that staff logged in to prior to delivering care and support.

People were provided with information in a way they could understand. Staff were aware of people's communication needs and how to support them. People’s care records was personalised and clearly outlined their ability to communicate their wishes and feelings. People’s information was securely stored. The provider shared an easy read MCA policy which they could provide to people who needed information in this format.

People were aware if they wanted to speak to the staff or raise a complaint, they could do. The home had a complaints and concerns log which showed that all concerns and complaints had been investigated, resolved and lessons had been learned. Staff said they tried to involve people and their families as much as possible. Staff were seen to have a good rapport with people’s visitors, interactions were polite and friendly.

People and their relatives had the opportunity to give feedback during their stay as well as upon leaving the service, this information was then collated and reviewed by the registered manager. Feedback was generally positive.

There were systems in place to ensure people had access to external health and social care professionals, including out of hours or in an emergency. During our site visit and from review of people’s care records, regular contact was being made with out of hours medical support following incidents such as falls. Feedback from a professionals included no concerns in relation to equity.

People with a variety of needs, backgrounds and cultures were supported by the home. They told us they felt supported. The home supported someone whose first language was not English, the registered manager ensured communication was not a barrier and other methods were introduced to support communication.

The provider had policies in place to ensure people were treated equally. There were opportunities for people to give feedback about their care and support.

The home usually does not provide end of live care. However, recently a person required end of life support. The home actively sought guidance and support from the palliative care team. This ensured the person was able to stay at the home for as long as possible. The home understood the importance of supporting the family during this difficult time and were responsive to any changes.