Wisteria House Residential Home - Rutland

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 spoke positively about their experience of living at the home because of the care they received. One person said, “This place is 10 times better than I expected. I had a vision of people just sat in a circle with the TV on. It is excellent here couldn't be better.”

Staff told, us how they supported people in a person centred way. Staff described people’s individual preferences, such as enjoying wearing perfume, lipstick or scarves. One staff member said this helped people “Feel better.” However, this level of personal detail was not always reflected in people’s care records.

The registered manager described reasonable adjustments made to support people’s changing needs. For example, one person was moved to a downstairs room when their mobility had declined.

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 told us they were able to access health professionals when needed. All people had regular access to the visiting GP and staff advocated for people who were not able to communicate their needs.

There was a consistent staff team, this meant people received continuity of care. Relatives said they valued seeing the same staff during visits and described the home as family‑run. The registered manager told us many staff had been with them a long time.Staff we spoke with confirmed this. One staff member said, “When you like somewhere you stay don’t you. It’s a nice small family home. It means you know all the families and people.”

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

People's communication needs were identified and recorded in their care plans. This included information on what equipment was used to support communication for example, hearing aids and glasses. Some people were not always able to communicate their needs verbally. Where this was the case care records guided staff to look for visual cues, including changes in body language. Information on how to report a concern or a complaint, was displayed in the home.

The provider was aware of the Accessible Information Standard and where required was able to provide information in a format which considered people’s communication needs.

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 relatives told us they felt comfortable raising concerns or suggestions and were confident their feedback would be acted on. Comments included: “I would be happy to talk to [Registered manager] if I had any worries.” “Nothing can be improved, I’m quite happy.”

We saw feedback such as compliments and thank you cards and letters had been sent to the service. These highlighted how positively relatives felt about the care provided to their family members.

Resident meetings were held to gather people’s views about the service. The provider had a complaints policy in place.

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

People were supported to access eye checks, dentist and a chiropodist visited the service. The home had a good relationship with the local doctor surgery who supported the home with a weekly round but also visited outside of these times if needed. This also included district nurses. This meant people’s health needs were promptly met.

The premises was accessible to the people living there, for example, walk in showers, bath lifts and handrails. The service also had Dementia-friendly clocks these are used to reduce time-related disorientation by displaying the time, day, and date in large, easy-to-read text.

Peoples protected characteristics as described in the Equality Act 2010 were considered at assessment and through care and support provided.

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.

People and their relatives told us they were treated equally and fairly. Staff felt confident in meeting people’s equality‑related needs and described taking steps to reduce barriers to inclusion, such as supporting people to access the local community and activities that were important to them. Staff had completed training in equality and diversity to help them understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that could affect how people’s needs were met.

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.

People’s care records contained future plans, particularly information around end-of-life care. At the time of inspection no one was receiving end of life care.

Some people had Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms in place.