Whitefield 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 79 (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 was exceptional at making 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.

Staff and people told us there was always an activity to engage in, significantly enriching the lives of people living at the home. The activities were suitable for all preferences and capabilities. There was also a focus on accessing the community. The activities co-ordinator told us, “We will always offer people a choice, people generally like bingo, [Activities coordinator] does a lot of activity crafts. The main focus is getting people out.”

The provider had a regular delivery of fresh flowers that people were supported to arrange and display around the home. They also purchased some uniform which people were supported to customise and accessorise. This was then displayed in a fashion show. The provider took photographs of the day, and it was clear the people who attended really enjoyed the activity.

Families reported their relatives have become keen to engage in activities. One relative explained, “To my surprise (they are) joining in things, (they were) singing this afternoon, I never thought (they) would do that.”

For those who did not enjoy group activities, 1 to 1 support was provided. While engaging in discussion with one person the activities co-ordinator noted paintings the person had created. In order to show case her paintings an exhibition was created and put on display at the local church. This was so successful that a second show case was being planned.

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.

Feedback from family members was overwhelmingly positive regarding the care provided. One relative described the improvements they had observed in their family member since receiving care, stating, “they look after (them) very well, they get (them) to do things we can’t”. Another relative shared, “the staff especially the senior staff are very knowledgeable”.

Some concerns were raised regarding staff understanding of certain conditions. One family member commented, “I don’t think they (staff) know enough about [condition], well no one does, but they are well trained enough.” However, records showed that staff had the necessary knowledge and skills to provide appropriate care, with specific training.

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

Information on how to make a complaint and how to report a safeguarding concern was provided to people and their relatives. These details were also displayed throughout the home.

A compliments and complaints policy and procedure was in place and accessible for people and their visitors. People and their families were invited to attend monthly resident and family meetings, where they received updates about the home and were given opportunities to share their views.

The provider had up to date policies and procedures in place relating to supporting people’s communication and sensory needs.Care plans included detailed information about people’s communication needs, including whether they wore glasses or used hearing aids.

One staff member also commented on how the use of visual aids was often helpful, staff had access to flash cards or would show people physical items to ascertain their choice.

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.

Leaders and staff understood the importance of involving people in their care and any changes to the environment such a redecorating or activity planning.

Staff were able to provide examples of how they involved people considering their preferred communication style. Care plans detailed when people had difficulty with word finding or pace of speech, ensuring they would be given the time to take part in discussion. Non-verbal communication such as body language was considered when staff communicated with people and wanted to obtain their preferences.

Staff were observed sitting with people and talking to them about their interests. These discussions were meaningful and enabled people to feel valued and listened to. Family supported this saying, “(they are) really well looked after.” and “The staff are very kind and caring.”

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

The premises were accessible with no physical barriers; appropriate mobility aids, adaptions and signage were used to promote this. Call bells and sensor mats were used throughout the home. People were assessed to determine which pieces of equipment were more accessible for them to alert staff when support was required.

The provider independently investigated concerns where people were waiting for extended periods for outcomes or onward referrals. Records were kept to evidence progress and the outcome of their investigation. They continued to liaise directly with specialist teams and the GP to achieve the required assessments and outcomes for people.

People and their families expressed confidence that the provider would arrange support when needed. They reported that staff understood people’s individual likes and dislikes and knew and respected them well. During the inspection, all staff were observed addressing people by their preferred names.

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 and their relatives played a meaningful role in shaping the service. Regular meetings were well attended, and those who participated reported feeling heard and included in decisions that led to service improvements.

The provider had an equality, diversity, and inclusion policy in place, which guided staff in ensuring people were treated with respect and dignity. Care plans demonstrated that people were individually assessed to identify their specific needs, including those related to disability, culture, and religion. One family member shared, “the SW did the care plan with the Hospital, but the manager talked to us as well, we got told everything, they are really good."

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.

People’s health conditions were regularly monitored to ensure any deterioration was identified and acted upon. Clinical governance meetings were used to review this information and identify any themes or trends, such as weight loss or deficits in food and fluid intake. People reported that their future care planning was developed in partnership with them and their relatives.

Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) orders were in place where appropriate and were clearly recorded within people’s files. Staff had received additional training to support their understanding what a DNACPR involves.

Where people had chosen to express their wishes for end-of-life care, these were clearly documented within their care plans, with detailed instructions for staff to follow.