Woking Homes

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as 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.

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.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

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 and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Although there were activities organised, these were generic rather than person-centred. There were no individual activity plans in place so people’s individual interests and hobbies could be used to tailor activities to them. Because there was only one activity coordinator each day, it was not possible for them to spend meaningful time with each person. For example, if they organised an outing, people staying home were not provided with any activities.

We observed people looking bored and unstimulated during the day. At times, people went to sleep because nothing was happening. People who stayed mostly in their rooms did not seem to have any planned activities. The activity coordinator told us the weekend coordinator spent time with these people during the weekend. However, this also meant other people were not engaged in activities whilst they did this.

We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they were taking appropriate action to make improvements in this area. They told us, “I have enclosed a business case for an additional activities worker which I will be presenting to the Trustees in August.”

They sent us evidence of the ‘Emotional and Social Wellbeing Care Plans’ they had introduced and said, “This care plan supports people to maintain meaningful engagement, social interaction, and emotional wellbeing through activities tailored to their individual preferences and needs.” 

They also added, “I have also developed an activities survey, which will be distributed to residents to gather feedback on the activities programme and identify any new interests or opportunities they would like us to explore.”​​

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.