Whitgift 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.

The provider ensured people were supported in a person-centred way.

Care plans were detailed and reflected people’s social histories, preferences and individual needs. This supported staff to understand people’s backgrounds and deliver personalised care. People’s records included information about their likes, dislikes and how they preferred their care and support to be provided.

Care plans guided staff to treat people with respect, offer choice and provide reassurance. Observations and feedback confirmed staff delivered care in line with these principles.

People and their relatives told us they felt involved in care planning and decision-making. One person said, “The staff are absolutely marvellous… they always pop in for a chat because I never sleep and bring me a cup of tea,” demonstrating how staff responded to individual needs and preferences.

The provider had identified opportunities to further strengthen person-centred care, including plans to reintroduce a daily team meeting to support people’s changing needs, to ensure care remained personalised and responsive.

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.

The provider worked with other professionals to ensure people’s needs were appropriately assessed prior to admission, and transitions were safely managed. We checked people’s care records and saw the provider ensured people’s needs were assessed and met, including by working with specialist agencies to support people’s health and wellbeing. The provider had good working relationships with community health care professionals such as specialist community health teams.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider did not always ensure people received clear, timely and accessible information to support their involvement in care and decision-making. We observed instances where information was not consistently shared with people. For example, we observed that menus were not readily available in the dining room, and staff were unable to explain all meal choices, which meant people were not always offered informed choices.

While systems existed to support access to information, such as online resources and assistive technology, these were not consistently embedded in practice. For example, doors to people’s rooms were not personalised and signage was not adapted for those with dementia which could be confusing for some people.

These issues meant the provider needed to improve how some information was shared, updated and made accessible to people and their representatives.

The provider did not always ensure people were consistently listened to and involved in decisions about their care.

Systems were in place for people and their relatives to share feedback, including meetings, surveys and informal discussions. The provider had also introduced initiatives such as “You said, we did” to demonstrate how feedback was used to drive improvements. People and relatives told us they were involved in some aspects of care planning and were informed of changes.

People gave positive feedback about staff being kind and caring, which indicated they felt listened to in day-to-day interactions. However, feedback also identified areas where people’s views had not always resulted in consistent improvements. Some people told us they felt isolated and wanted more one-to-one support and meaningful activities. Relatives also raised concerns about staffing levels and access to the home outside of normal hours.

Although feedback systems were established, gaps in documentation, including an unclear complaints policy, meant there was limited assurance that people and their representatives always had clear information about how to raise concerns. One relative told us, “Communication is varied and the home can be slow to respond to emails.”

These issues meant the provider could not always demonstrate that people’s views were consistently acted upon to improve their experience of care.

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

People had access to healthcare services and community activities, including outings and faith-based support, which promoted inclusion and access to wider opportunities.

Concerns about access to the service for visitors outside normal hours also showed equity of access to friends and relatives required further development. The provider had taken some steps in response to this concern and plan to keep this under review.

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.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy and provided training to staff to support cultural awareness.

Managers supported staff to understand individual needs. The home was staffed 24 hours a day and staff were supported by the on-duty nurse-in-charge and on-call managers during out of hours.

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.

Systems were in place to support planning, including electronic care records, advanced care planning and end-of-life care arrangements developed in partnership with external specialists.

Care plans included detailed information about people’s end of life preferences, which supported forward planning and personalised care. People’s relatives confirmed they had been involved in discussions about end-of-life care.