Withins (Breightmet) Limited

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 this assessment we reviewed 2 quality statements from this key question. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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.

People’s care plans and risk assessments lacked detail. Each care plan contained questions to ensure people’s needs and wishes were captured, which was positive. However, where people had indicated they needed support, there was little actual guidance provided on how this should be delivered or why it was needed. For example, in one person’s care plan next to ‘do you need assistance to dress’, it only stated ‘assistance of 2’. There was no information on whether this person could do any of this task themselves, such as put their own top on, or how they wished to be supported to dress. Furthermore, where people required the use of equipment, there was limited information on what this was to ensure safe care was maintained. For example, a person’s mobility care plan stated they required hoisting for transfers but there was no information about the hoist or type and size of sling required.

We found some people’s risk assessments were in place, despite the risks not always being applicable. Conversely, some risk assessments, which should have been documented, were not. In addition, there were various examples of risk assessments being duplicated in people’s care records which evidenced them not being individualised.

People’s risk assessments and care plans did not always correspond with one another. For example, a person’s risk assessment stated they were at risk of malnutrition and dehydration, but the care plan did not reference this, and the fluid charts did not indicate how much liquid they should be offered daily.

Care plans and related documentation had not always been updated in a timely way when people’s needs changed. For example, one person’s care plan summary stated they had a minced and moist diet and thickened fluids, whereas, due to improvements in their health, they required a normal diet and fluids. The same person’s mobility section stated they mobilised independently, then stated they now mobilised palm to palm with a staff member, which was no longer correct.

The provider had an ‘all about me’ section in the care plan but for some people, this had not been updated from the initial assessment.

Despite the above, people seemed to have a good understanding of their condition, care and treatment options. People, relatives and partners were complimentary about the staff knowing the people well and taking a person-centred approach to care. There were 3 activity coordinators employed and a varied activity schedule in place which accommodated people’s individual needs; people, relatives and staff all corroborated this.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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 told us they were treated well and equally by the staff. They felt empowered by the provider and staff to give their views and understood their rights. Partners of the provider did not raise concerns about inequalities in experience or outcomes for people using the service.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using their service, whether from wider society, organisational processes and culture or from individuals.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments. However, the provider did need to ensure their systems and processes regarding consent were strengthened to ensure care was being provided lawfully and in line with the mental capacity act.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.