Archived: Schoen Clinic York, Wellen 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 provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. They did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff provided basic care, and support. However, they did not consider how information recorded in care plans could be used to promote people’s wellbeing. Peoples care plans contained life histories, likes, dislikes and personalised information. However, staff interactions did not always reflect the information to enable person centred care. For example, staff were providing 1-1 support and missed opportunities to engage people in their hobbies and interests.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider ensured continuity of people’s care.

Action taken to address people’s healthcare and support needs was not always consistent. For example, we reviewed a person’s MDT record and there were no records to explain why one person was not supported to attend a planned appointment with a speech and language therapist on that day, there was also no evidence another referral had been made. Another person required a referral to the falls team, there was no evidence this had been completed.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

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 were not always asked for their feedback on their experiences of care and support.

The provider had not facilitated meetings for people to give their feedback. They told us they planned to capture people's voices at future meetings.

Systems to monitor complaints were not robust or accurate. The provider told us they had not received any formal complaints, however, one relative told us “I raised a complaint with the provider and received a fairly prompt response." The provider had information in the building and one their website to promote people to give feedback and raise a complaint if necessary.

The provider had not always involved people and their relatives in developing the service.

They had not held any meetings for people or relatives or carried out any surveys for them to share their views and feedback, People were not consistently involved in planning and reviewing their care.

The provider shared their plans for future resident and relative’s meetings and for creating keyworker system to capture people’s views.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed, when they needed it.

The provider had considered access throughout the layout of the building, which was tidy and free from obstruction. People had access to a communal lounge, activity area, and dining room, which they could move freely between, as well as their own bedrooms. The provider had considered the need to balance homeliness with safety regarding furniture in these areas, which included comfortable seating, a fireplace, and a piano.

They had carried out an audit of the environment in line with best practice and told us they had consulted with a dementia charity when designing the environment. Whilst the flooring was consistent in colour and tone, this did not include the threshold strip between the lounge and corridor, and dead ends at the end of corridors lacked interest and were not well lit. We observed one person struggling to move through this threshold and another person seeking an exit or stimulation in the corridor. The provider told us they continue to review the environment

Staff had completed equality and diversity training.

People's personal, cultural, social and religious needs were identified, understood and respected. We saw no evidence of any concerns around discrimination in the service.

The service demonstrated a culture where staff challenged inequalities and sought to find solutions to the barriers people faced. Staff advocated for people to ensure they were not discriminated against.

Staff supported people 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 and their relatives were involved in the development of their care plans which detailed their preference and wishes for end-of-life care. For example, a person’s family wanted to be consulted, if their health deteriorated and family wanted to be fully involved. Care plans also provided information on next of kin and lasting power of attorney for finances and health and well-being.

Care plans included information were people had DNACPR in place. DNACPR stands for ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)’. It means that if a person has a cardiac arrest or dies suddenly, there will be guidance on what action should or should not be taken by a healthcare professional, including not performing CPR on the person.