Wilbury

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 remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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. People’s preferences, routines and individual needs were clearly reflected in care planning and daily practice. We saw staff supporting people in ways that respected their choices and responded flexibly to how they were feeling at the time. One person initially declined to attend lunch, staff approached them calmly, moved to their level, spoke with them in a reassuring manner and offered encouragement without pressure. This person-centred approach supported the person to feel listened to and respected, and they later chose to join the meal. We observed positive, relaxed interactions between staff and people throughout the service. Staff were seen speaking with people in a friendly and respectful way, sharing light conversation and responding warmly. Staff knew people well and understood how to support them in ways that reflected their individual personalities, communication styles and preferences. Care records and daily notes supported this approach and showed staff adjusted support when people’s needs or wishes changed.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined‑up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People had care plans in place from admission following an assessment of their needs, and these were reviewed as needs changed. Staff had a shared understanding of how to support each person because they shared information consistently through handovers, where people were discussed in detail, including their health needs, preferences, planned activities and any changes in presentation. The service worked with other health care professionals to support people’s needs. During our assessment, occupational therapists were present in the service assessing a new admission, and staff shared information about the person’s needs, preferences and mobility to inform care planning. Where people’s health needs changed, staff took timely action, including contacting GPs, arranging investigations and introducing monitoring tools such as food and fluid charts. The manager told us, “We work well with community professionals and have introduced best practice forms to record people’s wishes and preferences for their future care and treatment. We work closely with local health services and community nursing teams.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information for people and relatives was available within the service and accessible. We saw that key information about the home, including how to raise concerns and who to contact, was available in shared areas. Signs were displayed around the service to support orientation and access to information, which helped people move around the home confidently. Information about meals was provided in a clear and accessible way. Weekly menus were available, and staff supported people by discussing menu choices with them. People were able to indicate their preferences, and where someone did not wish to have the planned meal, they were able to request an alternative. People could access information in a way that was clear, timely and responsive to individual needs. Staff were available to explain information and respond to questions from people and relatives as needed.

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. People and their relatives were supported to share feedback about their experience of the service. Opportunities were available for people to express their views and raise concerns, and staff understood the importance of listening and responding appropriately. These opportunities included day‑to‑day conversations with staff, discussions with the manager, and support to raise concerns formally if needed. People were encouraged to speak with staff if they had any worries, and these conversations were taken seriously. Staff knew how to support people to raise concerns and understood their role in escalating issues where required. Feedback was viewed as an opportunity to improve the service, and staff were able to describe how they would support people or relatives to raise concerns if they were unhappy.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to access external healthcare services when required. We saw referrals were made appropriately and staff worked with visiting professionals to support people’s health needs. This ensured people received timely support and continuity of care. During the assessment we spoke with a healthcare professional who was visiting the service. They told us, “Communication with the home was good and that staff were helpful”.

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. Some people living at the service had additional needs, including a cognitive impairment such as dementia or other memory‑related conditions. Staff adapted their approach to ensure people experienced care in an equitable way. Staff adjusted how they communicated and supported people so they could be involved as much as possible in their daily lives.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time and information to make informed decisions about their future, for example if they became unwell or towards the end of their life, including where relevant, end‑of‑life care. People were supported to have discussions about future planning in a sensitive and appropriate way. Where people wished to do so, conversations about future wishes were approached at a pace that respected individual preferences and circumstances. This helped ensure people were supported to think about what might happen if their health changed in a way that felt right for them. Where people did not want to discuss end of life care at the time of their assessment, this was respected. Staff were aware of the importance of revisiting these conversations when appropriate, to ensure people continued to have opportunities to express their wishes as their needs or circumstances changed.