Anjulita 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 service met people’s needs. We checked to see if: People received care, treatment and support that promoted equality and protected their rights.

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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

Staff helped people to overcome inequalities in experience and outcomes. For example, they told us they had received training to support them in meeting different communication needs. One staff member said, “People communicate in many different ways. Some people will use cards and for others it will be through body language and how they verbally respond. I would read the person’s communication care plan and chat with person, family and other staff to understand their method of communication.” Another staff member had completed specialist training to support people with a learning disability and / or autistic people. They added, “It was very interesting and has made me think about what I say and how I speak with people.” Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service. They were motivated and worked together as a team in the best interests of people living at the home. One staff member said, “It is like a big family. Knowing I make a difference to peoples’ day and life is rewarding.” Another staff member praised the management, “I love it here, the management team are supportive and the organisation are very good to everyone” and “[Registered manager] is very good, he supports us. If we ever need help, he doesn’t just sit in his office, he says if we have a problem, the door is always open, we don’t have to knock and wait.”

Overall, people told us they received care and support that was personalised, coordinated and worked well for them. People told us they felt listened to and were confident in the management of the service and would recommend the service to others. A relative told us, “I have nothing to complain about. I am asked regularly for my opinion, which I gladly give. What I like is that even when I am not with my relative, I still receive full feedback on how they spent the night or if anything out of the ordinary happened. We often work as a team and that also keeps me close to my relative. They are in good hands.” Another relative talked about the relative meetings they attended with the registered manager and how actions were taken in response to their feedback. They said, “We asked for a family board as there was nowhere we could get information from. We have one now, we also get an activity letter as a result of the meetings.” Meetings for people living at the service were held too. One person told us, “We had one a fortnight ago. We can raise any problems, have a word and they (staff) sort it out. There is always someone you can go to if you have a problem, the manager, the deputy manager, the door is always open.” Staff supported people to overcome inequalities in experience such as living with a sensory impairment. One example was using paper and a pen with someone who was deaf; to enable them to communicate their needs and preferences. Digital clocks had been placed around the home too, to support people to know the correct day, date and time. However, one person said there was room for improvement. They said, “If we can have staff who can check our hearing aids, that would be a great improvement for me.”

A range of quality assurance systems, such as audits, were in place; to check the quality of service provided to people. Regular meetings took place which provided people, relatives and staff with opportunities to raise concerns, share ideas and be involved in decisions relating to the home. The provider also sent regular newsletters to people and their relatives advising of key information and events at the home. Annual satisfaction surveys were conducted by the provider. Responses were analysed and actions put in place to drive improvement across the service. A complaints process was in place too. Outcomes from complaints were analysed for common trends and patterns so appropriate action could be taken to reduce re-occurrence. An improvement plan had been developed to correspond with findings from quality checks and audits. This was reviewed regularly and updated with any progress made. We found some care records lacked detailed person-centred information. The provider told us this had already been identified through their own audits and new documents were being introduced. These would assist staff to have an improved understanding of people’s individual preferences and to complete records in a more person focused way in future. This showed the provider had effective quality monitoring systems in place. We noted too that throughout our assessment the management team were open to feedback, taking swift action to improve outcomes for people using the service.

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.