Huguenot 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

This was the first assessment of this registered service under a new provider and therefore we assessed all 7 quality statements from this key question. Based on the findings of this assessment, our rating for this key question is good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Staff knew about people’s preferences and wishes and treated everyone as an individual. Staff ensured they communicated and shared information with people in a way they could easily understand. Care plans gave a good overview of people's support needs. People were treated fairly and free from the fear of being discriminated against. People were supported to understand their equality and human rights and how staff and managers would respect these. Staff supported people to plan for their end of their life care.

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.

People told us staff treated them as individuals and supported them according to their individual needs and preferences. A person said, “The staff know I don’t drink tea and coffee, which they always respect.”

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s support needs and preferences. They told us they acted as keyworkers for people which meant they were able to get to know people better.

Staff supported people in a person-centred way, supporting them in line with their individual needs.

People told us they received continuity of care from staff who were familiar with their individual care needs, preferences and daily routines.

Staff were familiar with the personalised care, preferences and daily routines of the people they regularly supported.

We did not receive any feedback from external health and social care professionals, however records seen indicate there were no concerns in this area.

Care plans were in place and these gave details about people's support needs and any external health and care providers involved in supporting people.

People told us they were provided with information that was presented in a way that was easy for them to understand.

Managers and staff confirmed they could supply people with information about the service in accessible formats as and when this was requested.

Care plans included details of people’s communication support needs and the steps they needed to take to support people. The environment was set up to enable visual communication and met the needs of people using the service who were deaf. Information was displayed with British Sign Language (BSL) and aided their understanding.

People told us the provider sought their views about the care they received, and they would not hesitate to speak up. A person said, “Yes I would feel comfortable speaking to staff.” Other comments included, “Yes, I have a voice, staff do listen.” People told us they would not hesitate to complain if they had concerns, “If I was unhappy, I would tell staff.” They told us there were a number of ways in which their feedback was sought including residents and key worker meetings.

The provider valued and listened to the views of staff. Staff told us they were encouraged to contribute their ideas about what the service did well and what they could do better. They said the registered manager was open to suggestions and took their ideas on board. Staff encouraged people to complain if they were unhappy. The registered manager gave an example where a person expressed they were not happy about an activity and the staff actively encouraged them to put their complaint in writing so it could be investigated.

There were a number of ways in which the provider listened to people and other stakeholders. Residents’ meetings were held monthly, and people were given the opportunity to give their and receive any feedback in relation to any updates, activities, meals and community presence. Monthly keyworker meetings were held, these were individual meetings and gave people an opportunity to provide feedback in an individual setting.

People could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff understood people had a right to receive equal access to health and care support, regardless of any disabilities.

We did not receive any feedback from external health and social care professionals, however records seen indicate there were no concerns in this area.

People received care and support from staff according to their individual assessed needs and wishes. People had access to external health care and social care professionals as and when they needed them.

People told us they were supported by staff to have the same opportunity as others and received equal opportunities.

Staff understood people had a right to be treated equally and fairly. They understood that people had different religious and cultural needs and how they would support them in these areas.

People’s care plans contained information about their individual wishes and preferences in relation to how their social, cultural and spiritual needs should be met. Training records showed staff received equality and diversity training which helped them to understand discriminatory behaviours and practices.

None of the people were receiving end of life care at the time of the assessment.

Staff told us people’s wishes for their end-of-life care, including their spiritual and cultural wishes, were discussed, and recorded in their care plan.

Care records contained details about end of life wishes which included funeral wishes and any religious or cultural considerations to be aware of.