Wilton 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 50 (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. We could not be assured people were provided with individualised care due to concerns we found regarding records and providing care to people in line with their assessed needs. We found staff storing personal items and handbags in people’s communal living spaces, and areas of the service were outdated and required refurbishments and redecoration. The provider had recognized redecoration was required and plans were in place to complete this. People were involved in a range of activities of their choice. Such as local discos, playing table tennis, trips out and swimming. A person said, “I like to go to football, I am getting a season ticket.” Relatives told us they were involved in their loved ones care planning and were kept informed of any changes.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Whilst we found staff worked with some external professionals and made some referrals for people, such as SALT and psychology. We could not be assured people always received support from external agencies, due to concerns we found relating to timeliness in gaining medical assistance for 2 people and professionals’ advice not always recorded in people’s care plans. For example, we found a GP had advised bed rest for a person, and this was not recorded in their care plan, for staff guidance and information.

Some people were provided with pictures and mood cards to enable them to express their feelings and make decisions. Staff received training, which included training videos and resources, to assist them in communicating with people. People also had easy-to-read style formats to assist them in providing feedback about their care. However, communication care plans lacked detailed guidance for staff about how people communicated. For example, 1 person’s plan contained little detail about another language they spoke and did not detail how staff supported them with this. Another person’s plan did not contain detailed guidance for staff about how to effectively communicate with them.

People told us they felt listened to. Compliments logs were in place and detailed some positive feedback from relatives and professionals. Feedback surveys were in place and results showed positive feedback. Comments included, 'Staff treat me well and without judgment' and 'If I am sad, staff know how to help me'. Relatives told us they felt involved in their loved ones’ care. A relative said, “I have a good relationship with the manager and staff. I phone them for updates or if I have an idea, they will phone me, especially if it is about medical appointments.” However, we found concerns were not always appropriately recorded, meaning it could not be evidenced all concerns were appropriately addressed.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We could not be assured that everyone accessed the care, support and treatment they need when they needed it. For example, concerns we found relating to care delivery and the monitoring of accidents and incidents, meant people did not necessarily have access to care, support and treatment at the time they required it.

Due to shortfalls we found in relation to care records, daily records, managing risks and people receiving care in line with their assessed needs, we could not be assured the provider tailored care and support to people. Whilst we found staff supported people some people to achieve outcomes and attend community activities. There was a lack of detail in people’s care records, about their future goals and wishes. We could not be assured people were given the opportunity to formulate or achieve short and long term goals.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. There was a lack of records relating to peoples future wishes, goals and aspirations. There were several people living at the service, who due to deterioration in health needs and the layout of the environment, were no longer suitable to live there. The provider had recognised this concern and was liaising with social services for reassessments. Information relating to people’s wishes at the end of their life were discussed with people and relatives, where appropriate and this information was contained in people’s care plans.