Wombwell Hall

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 provider 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.

Previous areas requiring improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to the detail of information recorded in people’s care plans and staff having accurate and up to date information to guide them. Care plans contained person centred information that enabled staff to know what care and support people needed. Care plans contained people’s personal information, which was used to guide staff on delivering person centred care. Some care plans did not contain information around people’s equality, diversity and human rights. However, we raised this with the manager, who acted swiftly to review the care plans we saw. Systems had been put in place to routinely review update people’s care plans where required.

People told us that staff new them well and they had been involved in developing their care plans in line with their needs and preferences. One person told us, “The staff know me and I find them very nice and caring. They are very chatty. Even the agency staff seem nice.” A member of staff said, “The care plans are pretty good and we can always ask if we are unsure about anything.”

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.

Previous areas requiring improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to the detail of information recorded in people’s care plans and staff working in a joined-up way with professionals. We could not get direct feedback from people in relation to care provision, integration and continuity. However, staff understood people’s needs, for health, wellbeing and their cultural needs, for example, people were supported with their faith.
The manager told us, “We are looking to bring the community into the home, and the home into the community. There are lots of plans in place to get the community involved here.”

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

Previous areas requiring improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to people having access to information in an accessible format. People told us they were provided with the information they needed about their care and support and had access to systems that allowed them to communicate more effectively.

Staff and leaders confirmed people’s needs to have information in an accessible format was assessed and recorded. These needs were met and reviewed to support people’s care and treatment in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Staff confirmed they supported people to access and understand information relevant to them.

Polices such as safeguarding and complaints could be provided to people in formats which were accessible for them. If required, people were able to use alternative forms of communication in their care plans and risk assessments to ensure their understanding, for example, using pictorial information or large print.

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.

Previous areas requiring improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to the complaints being managed in line with the provider’s policy, and mixed feedback from people in relation to being able to comment on their care. People said they would speak up if they had any concerns and were confident they would be listened to. A relative told us, “The staff are reassuring and make me feel [my relative] is in a good place. They would definitely listen if I had concerns.”

Feedback from staff and leaders confirmed they actively listened and involved people. They described how they communicated with people in a way they understood, and which was meaningful to them. The manager explained the formal complaints procedure to obtain people’s feedback. Staff knew about the complaint's procedure. Staff told us they would take complaints seriously and follow the provider’s complaints procedure.

Processes were in place to ensure people’s voices were heard. There were opportunities for people to make a complaint or feedback to staff at any time. Any concerns raised were treated professionally and as an opportunity to learn.

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

Previous areas requiring improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to MCA assessments being adequately explored for people. Feedback from staff and partners confirmed people had free choice and access to any external service provisions they required. Processes were in place to ensure people did not experience any barriers in accessing the care and support 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.

Previous areas requiring improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to MCA assessments being adequately explored for people. We could not get direct feedback from people in relation to equity in experiences and outcomes. However, feedback we received from staff and documentation we saw showed that people, sometimes with support, were in control of their care.

Staff had completed training around Equality, Diversity and Human Rights (EDHR), which helped to recognise, promote and protect people's protected characteristics. Staff showed a good awareness of what discrimination meant and how to challenge any concerns. Processes were in place to help ensure people’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers and protected their rights.

Care plans contained information about how people’s social, cultural and spiritual needs should be met. Training records showed staff received equality and diversity training which helped them to understand discriminatory behaviours and practices.

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.

Previous areas requiring improvement identified at the last inspection had been met in respect to the detail of information recorded in people’s care plans and staff having accurate and up to date information to guide them around people’s future wishes. People were supported to plan, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The service worked closely with the local hospice team to ensure people’s end of life support needs were met. The manager told us, “We put a lot of work into end of life care. We have an arrangement in place where our staff learn from the local hospice and vice versa.”