Wisteria House (Woolwell) Dementia Care Ltd

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 service met people’s needs. This is the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated 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 service 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 care plans reflected their individual needs and staff knew people well. Any changes to people’s care were discussed with people and their families. One person’s relative said, “Communication about accidents or illnesses have been very good.” A staff member said, “Care plans are good and informative, and resident’s families help us get to know their past, and their likes and dislikes.”

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.

Staff had good working relationships with external professionals and knew what support was available for people locally.

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

The homes website was regularly updated and staff kept families up to date with events in the home via a facebook page. Staff were aware of the accessible information standard and had a variety of tools they could use to communicate with people in order to meet their individual access requirements.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There were monthly meetings for people to provide feedback and outcomes from mood mapping were used to gather feedback from people not able to contribute verbally. Food taste testing sessions were used to involve people in planning menus and ordering food.

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

Staff knew how to access support for people and people’s care plans contained details about the health professionals involved in their care. Managers were either on site or on call to support with any urgent healthcare needs, and to ensure people had access to the services they required.

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.

Staff were pro-active in identifying changes in people’s health and seeking support from health professionals. They advocated for people and ensured they removed barriers to care and treatment where possible. For example, challenging external health professionals when they were reluctant to admit a person to hospital for treatment due to their age. One health professional said, “The staff seem to have the time to sit with residents and give them some time to talk.”

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.

Sufficient information was available to ensure staff understood how to care for people as their needs changed. Staff were working to expand the depth of people’s end of life care plans, and had agreed a budget to purchase a bank of sensory items to improve the well being of people being cared for at the end of their life.