Wythall Residential Home

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 64 (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 and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans varied in quality and did not always contain personalised information. Most plans included a good level of detail and were person centred, however, some lacked individualised content. For example, 1 person living with dementia had a care plan that described dementia in general terms but did not reflect how their condition presented for them. The registered manager told us they reviewed care plans through a resident of the day system; however, we found the plans did not always show when people or their relatives had been involved in care planning, which meant opportunities for meaningful involvement were sometimes missed. Despite these shortfalls, people and their relatives were generally happy with the care provided, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s preferences.
 

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.Records showed healthcare partners visited the service regularly, which ensured people could access the support they needed when required. During our assessment, we observed community nurses attending the service to provide healthcare input. Staff acted on the advice and instructions given by visiting professionals to help achieve positive outcomes for people.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider had an up to date Accessible Information Standard (AIS) policy which reflected current guidance in how they supported people’s communication needs. Most people had communication care plans that set out their preferred methods of communication. Staff understood how to communicate effectively with each person; for example, 1 person used flash cards and a writing board. The provider also kept personal information securely, to help protect people’s privacy.
 

The provider did not seek feedback from people or their relatives, and relative and resident meetings were not taking place. The provider was not carrying out surveys, which meant they missed opportunities to understand people’s experiences and make improvements. When relatives raised issues with staff, these were not escalated to management, which meant concerns were not reviewed or addressed at the appropriate level. Following our assessment the registered manager confirmed they had started to hold meetings for people and their relatives.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to access care and treatment they required in a timely way. Care plans detailed where people needed specific aids to support their mobility and independence. The provider had an on-call system in place to enable staff to access support out of hours.

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. The provider had an Equality and Diversity policy in place, and most staff had completed relevant training, which helped them recognise inequality and adapt their approach when needed. Where people experienced delays or barriers in accessing some external services, the registered manager advocated on their behalf to address this. Some people’s care plans captured their cultural and religious needs; however, further work was needed to ensure this information was recorded consistently for everyone, so staff had the detail required to tailor support appropriately.

People were not always 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.At the time of our assessment, no one was receiving end of life care. Care plans for people’s end of life wishes were not always detailed or person centred. Some decisions were recorded about people’s preferences if their health deteriorated; for example, some people had ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR) decisions and a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT). Staff had received training on end-of-life awareness.