Yearsley Villa

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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

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 ensure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and did not work effectively in partnership with people to respond to changes in their needs.Care records contained gaps in people’s care and lacked person-centred detail, which meant there was no clear or reliable guidance on how to support people in line with their preferences. Important information such as people’s routines and how they wished to receive care was not consistently recorded. This placed people at risk of receiving care that did not reflect their individual wishes or needs.We found inconsistencies between what the provider told us about people and what was recorded in care plans. While the providers demonstrated a general awareness of people’s needs, this knowledge was not embedded in records, and care needs were not recorded. This meant care delivery relied on informal knowledge rather than robust systems, increasing the risk of inconsistent or inappropriate care.In some cases, care plans did not provide sufficient guidance to support staff to recognise changes in people’s health or wellbeing, or how to respond appropriately. The provider knew people well and there had been no identifiable negative impact to people. However, the lack of person-centred information increased the risk of receiving poor care. Consequently, a breach of regulation was found.

The provider supported people and offered flexible care. Working with other health and social care professionals to help ensure people received coordinated care. Referrals were made when people’s health needs changed, supporting continuity across services. People described consistent support from the providers who knew them well, which helped maintain continuity of care.

The provider did not always ensure people and those supporting them received clear, accurate and accessible information about their care and support.Information held within care records was not always complete or consistently reviewed, which limited how effectively these records could be used to guide care delivery.
Improvements were needed to ensure information was accurate, up to date and meaningful for all people using the service.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes.People and their relatives told us they felt listened to and were able to share feedback about their care. The provider told us they would act on concerns raised and would take the appropriate steps to address issues where needed.
People preferred an informal approach to sharing their views, discussing their care daily with the providers. Records were not kept of these discussions; however, people told us they could speak to the providers at any time. Families had been sent feedback surveys to also help contribute to the ongoing care in the service.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. There were no significant barriers identified that prevented people from accessing care or support. Staff supported people to access healthcare services and specialist input when required.

The provider did not always ensure people experienced equitable care or achieved equitable outcomes. Information about people’s individual characteristics, needs and potential risks relating to inequality was not always clearly identified, recorded, or used to inform care planning. This limited the provider’s ability to recognise and respond to differences in people’s experiences or outcomes. Records needed to improve to clearly evidence the opportunities people had and how the provider was supporting them to achieve positive outcomes. The provider had completed diversity training to help support awareness in this area, however this was out of date at the time of the inspection.

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.While end-of-life care is not typically within the scope of this service, the providers remained attentive to this need should it arise.