Georgian 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 remains good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 to help ensure care was provided in accordance with people’s needs and preferences. Daily records showed people were able to make daily choices about how and where they spent their time. We noted some of the daily notes were not meaningful. Management told us they had identified this as an area for improvement and were working to make improvements.

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. Managers and staff recognised when people were at risk of a poorer experience due to their protected characteristics and took steps to mitigate that risk. Staff told us they listened to people and supported them with choice and accessing experiences. One commented; “It is nice to see people being part of a community and everyone deserves that chance.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Easy read formats were used to support decision making and capacity assessments. Staff were aware of the possible impact of the environment on people’s ability to process information and took this into account.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, and support. A complaints policy was provided with the service user guide. A suggestions box was available in a shared area. When people raised complaints, these were investigated and the findings shared with the complainant.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Healthcare professionals such as a local dentist and hospital staff sometimes visited people at Georgian House to ensure they received support from specialist services. Some people were unable to express verbally if they were in pain or discomfort. Staff were alert to any changes in people’s behaviour and arranged for health checks to identify if there were any underlying health conditions. A member of staff told us how they supported people to use local facilities in order to take part in activities that mattered to them. They told us; “There is no reason why anyone cannot do these kinds of things.” We saw an email from an external professional which read; “I’m sure having so much space and confidence in his staff has enabled [Name] to engage.”

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. While most people were able to make choices about how they spent their time we found one person did not have equal access to opportunities. This person had a condition on their DoLS which stated they should have regular opportunities to have drives out as it was important to them. Analysis of two weeks of daily records showed they had only gone out twice during this period. On one day the daily notes stated there was no drivers available to enable them to go for a drive. An activity planner stated the person should be offered walks in the garden. There was no record this had occurred during the two weeks we looked at. We raised this with the management team who told us they would follow this up with staff.

People were not always 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 to record people’s wishes at the end of their life had been developed. However, these were not always completed. There was no evidence staff had approached the subject with people or their relatives. Therefore, we could not be assured this aspect of people’s care was always considered. However, when people had a Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation order (DNACPR) in place this was recorded.