Winslow House

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 treatmentchoices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond toany relevant changes in people’s need.

People’s care plans mostly reflected people’s preferred support. However, people told us sometimes they were not always getting this. For example, getting up at their preferred time or being able to access all areas of the service. One person said, “Can get about but I feel sorry for those people who get stuck up here when the lift is broken.” Staff we spoke with told us it could be more difficult to meet people’s choices at certain times of the day. One staff member said, “Sometimes hard to find enough staff to help, whilst supporting residents’ personal choice, particularly at meal times.” People were involved in planning what they wanted to do and when.

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 and their relatives told us they were involved in their care. Staff gave us examples of how they included people in reviewing their care plans. One staff member told us, “Care plans document all activities as well as needs of residents such as mobility issues. Any changes or concerns are highlighted in a communication book.” One person told us, “Residents’ meetings are once a month. I go along to the meetings. Each time they will tell you the time and the place to go to if you want to question things. I do go along and we talk about things that are important to us.”

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

The provider had moved to an electronic care planning system where people had been involved in care plan reviews. However, the system was not set up to enable people with mobility or dexterity issues to sign these reviews easily. The provider told us they were looking at a more accessible way to involve people in signing their care plans.

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. The provider operated an ‘open door policy’. People told us they felt comfortable to raise concerns or complaints. One person said, “No complaints at all but I am sure that they would take it seriously if I did have any worries.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, people we spoke with generally felt they received the type of support they needed, when they wanted it. However some of people told us they had to wait longer than they would like for aspects of care. This was raised during the assessment and the provider started to take action to address this.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff treated people as individuals and made reasonable adjustments for anyone that needed them. We observed staff supporting people to attend an activity in the communal area of the service. However, due to a problem with the lift some people could not access the ground floor or go outside because their mobility was compromised. Although people had access to communal lounges and activities upstairs it meant some people’s experiences of the service were not the same as others. The provider told us after the assessment the lift was repaired, the lift breaking down was not a regular occurrence. The provider sent us an updated business continuity plan reflecting how people’s access to downstairs and outside could be overcame should there be an issue with the lift in the future.

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.

Care plans we reviewed did not always show how people had been involved in planning for their future including their end of life wishes. The service told us they were in the process of updating all care plans and this action was included on the service improvement plan. We reviewed one example where the person had been actively involved in future plans and this was reflected well in their care plan.