121 Watleys End Road

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 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.

People received care that was person centred and based on their wishes. People’s care plans included information such as when a person liked to wake in the morning and when they wanted to go to bed. Staff showed they knew people well. Relatives felt people received person centred care, which met their needs.A member of staff told us,” All staff members do have the best interests of the people we support.”

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 were supported to access and feel part of their local communities. The registered manager was aware improvements were needed in this area. Staff said some people’s day care hours had been reduced, which meant some people did not go out as often as they liked.

Some people attended a sing along and a dance group in a local venue enabling them to meet up with other people with a learning disability. Two people were supported to attend a specific church service for people with learning disabilities once a month. One of the people had attended this before they had moved to 121 Watleys End Road and this had continued.

Care plans described people’s individual health and care support needs and the health and social care professionals that were involved in their support. They also described the support people needed to attend appointments and what adjustments were required.

People were supported to keep in contact with family and friends. Relatives confirmed they were involved and could visit when they wanted. A relative told us, “When I visit, all staff welcome me, the home is busy especially in the mornings. The staff do their best.” Another relative told us they were no longer able to visit the home, and staff supported them to meet up in a local pub close to their home on a regular basis. They told us they had regular video calls enabling them to stay connected with their loved one and an opportunity to speak with their keyworker.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Improvements were needed. The provider had moved to a new electronic care planning tool. Daily records were completed but these were not person centred as the drop boxes often did not reflect the mood and activities that people took part in. For example, 1 entry stated out for the day and slightly engaged and no other details. Daily food entries included what people had eaten but not whether they had enjoyed the meal. Whilst there was some informative information about people’s general health and wellbeing, which staff had inputted into the records, improvements were needed to ensure daily records were person centred.

However, people’s communication needs had been assessed, and a communication passport had been developed. A welcome pack was provided to people explaining the service and what they could expect. This was in an accessible format.

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.

Staff knew people well and were able to determine if a person was not happy enabling them to make adjustments to their care. Relative’s views were sought via care reviews and surveys. A survey had recently been sent to relatives to seek their views. Feedback was positive. Meetings were arranged for families to discuss their concerns to help resolve these.

There was a pictorial format easy to understand the service’s complaints procedure. This was to support people and those who represented their views to express if they felt unhappy in anyway about the home, the staff or any part of their care. The service had a formal system to respond to complaints. A relative said they had no complaints, but if they were any concerns they would speak with the care staff.

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

Staff worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure equal access to health services. People were registered with the local GP, dentist and opticians. A podiatrist regularly visited the service to support people with their footcare.

The home was purpose built to support people using wheelchairs. Corridors and doorways were wide enabling people to move freely around their home where they were able. Bathrooms had specialist equipment enabling people to receive personal care safely.

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.

Everyone living in the service required specialist equipment including the use of wheelchairs to enable them to mobilise. This meant everyone needed support from a member of staff when accessing the community. People were supported to access community facilities such as a local swimming pool, which had specialist equipment enabling them to access the facilities. People were supported to go to local pubs, garden centres and take part in holidays with staff and their families. It was evident staff supported people to access a variety of venues and did not let people’s physical disability prevent them from doing so.

Staff were trained in equality and diversity and demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of ensuring people were not discriminated against.

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.

However, not everyone had an end-of-life plan in place. The registered manager was aware that some work was needed in this area. Where people did have a plan this was person centred and included information such as whether they wanted to stay at home, the funeral arrangements, and any specific requests such as music and flowers. Relatives and staff who knew people well had been involved in these discussions.

Care records contained decisions on whether a person would need to be resuscitated in the event of a life-threatening illness. These decisions were made in the person's best interest involving the staff, GP and their family.

From talking with staff about a recent death, it was evident staff had gone the extra mile. This included staying with them in hospital to ensure they received the care and support they needed with familiar staff around them.