Wellburn 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 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure people received person centred care.

Every person had an individual plan of care which detailed their care and support needs. However, people did not always receive care in accordance with these assessed needs and preferences.

One relative reported how their loved one had been given food and drinks they didn’t like.

The provider did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care and support plans were not always reflective of people’s current needs. For example, a care plan had not been updated to reflect current wound treatment plans.

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.

Care was coordinated and supported by the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) working together so people experienced consistency and continuity of care. Regular input from the GP, district nursing team and other healthcare professionals, supported staff to manage people’s care needs.

The registered manager had identified gaps in local oral health care provision and had sourced alternative care pathways to ensure people had to access to dental services.

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

People and those important to them had access to clear information about the provider, the home and local services. This was displayed at various locations throughout the home.

The service had systems in place to meet the Accessible Information Standard, including easy-read and large print documents. Staff used technology to support people who may have difficulties in expressing their needs.

The electronic care planning system allowed staff to update care records in real-time.

Effective systems were in place to enable people and relatives to share feedback and ideas, or raise concerns about their care, treatment or support.

People could meet with visiting healthcare professionals involved in their care during regular visits and at care reviews.

The registered manager had an open-door policy which allowed people to speak with them at a time convenient to them. The service also held formal meetings where people could attend to meet the management team, discuss matters of importance and receive updates about the service.

Surveys from people, relatives, staff and professional visitors were used to collate feedback. These were used to highlight good practice, share information and drive improvements. The gardening club and redesign of the summer house were created as a result of the feedback provided.

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

The home provided step-free access and environmental adaptations to support people with mobility needs. People had personal spaces which they could call their own and there were internal and external communal areas which could be accessed.

When people moved to the service, they could choose to remain with their existing GP practice and other health services to maintain care continuity. There was an activities programme where people could actively partake or observe. People were encouraged to maintain contact with their local community through outings and local events.

Visiting was unrestricted and relatives could attend at any time convenient to them to enable them to maintain important relationships.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Care plans included information around people’s backgrounds, things which were important to them, their wishes and relationships they wanted to maintain. However, inconsistency in care delivery and the home environment did not always lend itself to positive experiences and outcomes for people.

There was an advertised activity programme which people enjoyed. However, on our first visit, there were occasions where some people missed meaningful social interaction, engagement and stimulation. This was more apparent for people who chose to sit in the reception area or stay in their rooms.

At our second visit, there was a noticeable improvement in staff engagement with people which they really enjoyed. People responded positively to staff interactions which helped support good outcomes for people.

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.

Care plans recorded people’s preferences about future care and end of life wishes. There was evidence of discussions with family members to ensure staff were fully informed of personal preferences.

The home provided comfort packs for family members staying in the home with their loved ones. Staff were working with district nursing services to further improve care for people at the end of their life.