Northway 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 service met people’s needs. This is the first inspection since the service was registered to the provider Pebblestones Limited. This key question has been rated 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 service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care was mainly provided in accordance with people’s individual needs and preferences. For example, 2 people liked to have their personal care provided by female staff. All staff were aware of this and respected the people’s choice. However, people’s care plans did not always reflect their individual physical, emotional and social needs. The manager told us that care plans required further development, and this was part of their action plan for the home.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff worked with other professionals to make sure people’s needs were met. During our site visit we saw people were supported to attend medical appointments outside the home. One person said, “Tomorrow I’m going to clinic. Someone from here will take me.” Staff said they had a weekly call with a local GP surgery which enabled them to seek advice and discuss people’s medical needs. One member of staff told us, “Communication with the surgery is good.” Healthcare professionals did not raise any concerns about how the service liaised and worked with them.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were understood by staff. During the site visit we observed staff taking time with people to make sure they were able to fully express their wishes.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People felt their views and concerns were listened to. One person commented, “You can go to the manager, and they listen to you.” Relatives said they could approach the manager at any time. Regular meetings for people and their relatives had been started. This was an opportunity for people and families to make suggestions or raise concerns. It was also a chance for the provider to share any changes or updates with everyone.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service was accessible and took action to minimise any barriers people faced accessing it. Staff were trained to understand, identify and reduce any health or care inequalities.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff worked to reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people with protected characteristics.

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 were supported to plan for their ongoing care including support they would like at the end of their lives. Staff worked with other professionals to make sure people at the end of their lives were comfortable and cared for with dignity and compassion.