Helen Ley 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 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 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 decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care plans reflected their physical, mental and emotional needs and were regularly reviewed. Staff told us they read care plans to ensure people’s individual needs were met and regular handovers meant they had up to date information to respond to any changes. People and their relatives told us they were involved in reviews of their care and the support they received was responsive to any changes in their health or presentation. One person commented, “They have changed the care plan when I have changed. Some of the exercise regimes didn't suit me. The next week it had changed. They have been very proactive in changing."

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. Through multi-disciplinary (MDT) working with internal and external healthcare professionals, people received integrated and consistent care. The registered manager told us, “Instead of people having to go to hospital, they (health specialists) come on site and do an MDT with the patient and the family. It is an immediate answer and response." Where necessary, staff supported people and their relatives at meetings with other agencies and health care professionals to review and consider people’s future care pathways. One healthcare professional told us, “Multi-disciplinary meetings are held regularly at the care home and I have been involved in such meetings for example, best interest meetings where several members of the team have attended (e.g. physiotherapist, occupational therapist, named nurse and clinical psychologist). I feel the multi-disciplinary approach at Helen Ley House is very beneficial to the residents.” The registered manager explained how they had reviewed care provision locally and recently opened a new unit to provide ongoing care and rehabilitation for people who no longer required treatment in hospital. They described how supporting people in their long-term recovery helped to prevent future admissions to hospital.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Working in conjunction with the occupational therapy and speech and language teams, staff used a variety of tools to communicate with people according to their needs and abilities. For example, some people used pen and paper, or letter boards and others communicated by body language. People who had very limited movement in any part of their body were assessed for assisted communication therapy. This had resulted in some people being given eye gaze equipment which responded to their eye movements and enabled them to use their call bell to request assistance. Where required, communication passports ensured staff understood the most effective way of communicating with people.

Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. However, the provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People described meetings where they were informed about changes in the service and questionnaires they had been asked to complete. People and their relatives told us they felt confident to raise any concerns or issues about their experiences of care and support. Most people felt concerns were dealt with promptly. Comments included: “Anything we mention, they rectify it quickly” and “Any complaints we have are managed properly and soon put right.” However, some people felt communication around and in response to feedback or concerns could be improved. One relative commented, “I was emailed the agenda (for the ‘residents’ meeting) but on the agenda there was no other business, so I thought, how do residents bring things up." Another person told us, “There has been a survey, I did it but there’s been no feedback.” There was a lack of accessible information about the process for the management of formal complaints and where people could escalate their concerns if they were not happy with the response. The registered manager took immediate action to ensure this information was displayed within the home.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The GP and other specialist healthcare professionals regularly visited the service. Staff monitored people to identify any deterioration in their medical conditions, so people had prompt access to these services. One healthcare professional told us, “If I need a patient’s observations performing prior to the ward round, I can email the nurse and ask for them to be available for when I arrive, so saving time.” Staff worked creatively to ensure people could communicate their needs and where required, adjustments were implemented to support people to access the care they needed. Where people were not able to verbalise their pain, staff used assessment tools to ensure discomfort was identified and addressed promptly. The layout of the home ensured all areas were accessible to everyone.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff worked as a multi-disciplinary team to ensure people’s communication needs were known and people were able to express the outcomes they wanted to achieve. Where people did not have family to support them in expressing their wishes, the provider arranged for advocates to ensure decisions were equitable and in people’s best interests. People and their relatives gave examples of how staff support had helped them to achieve identified outcomes. For example, in relation to regaining mobility and rebuilding physical strength. A healthcare professional told us, "There are many recent examples of helping their residents to achieve a level of function beyond that predicted by the initial level of impairment."

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. People's care plans included the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment form (ReSPECT). This plan provides clinicians with information about whether attempts at resuscitation should be undertaken for the person and their preferences for where their care should be delivered should they become unwell. Where people were identified as moving towards end of life, anticipatory medicines were in place to ensure the person remained comfortable and pain free.