White Pearl 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 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.

During observations at White Pearl House, we witnessed person centred care was being provided. People and their relatives felt that people received person centred care, that met their needs. Care plans were person-centred, based on the information recorded and included details of peoples likes and dislikes.

Each resident had a personalised newsletter that was shared with families to keep them up to date about their loved one’s activities. Staff spoke about what person-centred care meant. One staff member said, "It is about providing care specific to the individual." The registered manager spoke about care plans being person centred. They said, “Care plans stay person‑centred because we build them around each individual’s preferences, routines, identity and goals, and review them regularly with the person or their representative so they always reflect who they are and what matters to them.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Relatives told us they were happy with the care provision. Throughout the inspection staff and management made reference to various organisations they made referrals to for support when needed. We found examples where referrals were made to ensure people received the right support and treatment.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People could access information and express their views in numerous ways including at meetings, through surveys and by raising complaints. People and their relatives felt their information was securely stored. One relative said "Yes (records are stored safely). They have a separate office to store information in."

Staff spoke about how they promoted people’s privacy. People’s information was protected using passwords on electronic devices, and paper records were stored away in lockable cupboards. A GDPR policy was in place. The registered manager told us how they could provide information in various formats, they told us, “We meet the Accessible Information Standard by identifying each person’s communication needs at referral and assessment, recording them clearly in their care plan, and providing information in the format that works best for them. Whether that’s easy‑read documents, large print, pictures, symbols, advocates or communication aids; so, everyone can understand their care and make informed choices.”

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 could provide feedback. One relative said, "They do listen to me and act on my views." Staff told us they generally felt able to escalate any concerns to the management to investigate. People and their relatives were able to raise concerns or feedback through various channels. There had been no recent complaints made to the service. Some surveys had been completed by people’s relatives and staff, and these had been analysed. Responses were mostly positive. Policies were in place to support people sharing feedback, including a complaints policy.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could access care and support when needed. Staff felt people received the care they needed. People’s relatives felt the service was accessible. The service was generally accessible for people and had grab rails, even floor levels, a ground floor bedroom and toilet facilities on both floors including en-suite bedrooms.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People’s relatives told us they felt people were treated equally. Staff told us they had no concerns about the care provided. Meetings and information sharing for people were taking place, which kept people’s loved ones up to date with any changes and allowed them to discuss any concerns. The registered manager told us, “We support equality, diversity and human rights by tailoring care to each person’s cultural, religious and LGBT identity, making reasonable adjustments, and ensuring staff challenge discrimination and uphold dignity in everyday practice.”

People were not always supported to plan for their end of life, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their preferred care in this area.

We did not ask people and their relatives about end-of-life care plans, as we were aware that this was something that had not been covered in peoples care plans. The service was not supporting anyone that was approaching end of life at the time of this assessment.

People did not have end of life plans in place or any records of any documented discussions around this. An end-of-life policy was in place to support staff, but staff had not had end of life training. The registered manager told us this was an area they were looking to make improvement in and immediately purchased end of life training for staff to complete.