Weaver 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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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.

People were not always fully involved in planning their care, and care plans did not always reflect their wishes, goals or changing needs. One person had experienced a significant life event, but their care plan did not explain how this had affected them or how staff should support them. Information about another person’s behaviour was displayed on a board in a shared lounge. This did not protect the person’s privacy and was removed following feedback.

Despite gaps in care records, staff who knew people well understood their preferences and how they wanted to be supported. Newer staff were developing this knowledge and staff shared relevant information within the team. One staff member said, “If I find out a nugget of information, it’s not just for me. You pass it on.”

Some staff recognised care plans needed more detail. The manager and provider acknowledged improvements were required and began taking action during the assessment. This included involving people, their representatives and support staff more fully in reviewing people’s care.

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.

Staff understood people’s physical, emotional and social needs and worked with health and social care professionals to provide joined-up care. This included specialist teams supporting people with anxiety and specific health needs, helping people access specialist support when required. One external professional told us, “They are registered with all the relevant healthcare professionals and appointments are maintained.”

Advice and guidance from healthcare professionals was incorporated into people’s care records. Staff understood and followed this guidance, helping people receive safe, coordinated care.

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 provide information in ways that met people’s individual communication needs. Communication plans lacked sufficient detail about how people understood information, communicated their needs and expressed their choices.

One person’s care plan recorded that a choice board should no longer be used because it increased their anxiety. However, the board remained in their bedroom, and not all staff were aware it should not be used. This increased the risk of staff using a communication method that could cause the person distress. Another person’s care plan detailed that they should be given 2 choices, however we observed staff asking them open questions such as ‘What would you like to eat?’

There was limited pictorial information available. Staff responded promptly when people asked for information, such as who would be supporting them later in the day, but this information was not available in alternative formats.

One person told us they did not want to see their care plan because they did not think they would understand it. Alternative ways of making their care plan accessible had not been explored. This limited the person’s opportunity to understand and engage with information about their own care.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People and their representatives were not always meaningfully involved in decisions about their care and support. House meetings had not taken place in line with the provider’s policy, limiting opportunities for people to influence how the home was run. A satisfaction survey had been undertaken, but only 1 person responded and the reasons for the low response had not been explored.

Key worker reviews did not always involve people or meaningfully explore their views, wishes, goals and experiences. We found examples where choices had been made on people’s behalf without evidence they had been consulted. Some records also used unclear language and did not demonstrate a person-centred approach. As a result, the provider could not always demonstrate how people’s feedback influenced their care and support.

However, we observed staff listening to people’s views and choices during day-to-day interactions and responding to them in the moment.

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

People’s differing independence was recognised and the support they required to access other services was considered. Staff gave us examples showing how they had advocated for people so they would receive the equipment they needed to remain safe, and which enabled them to continue to do things they enjoyed doing.

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.

Staff gave us examples of people with protected characteristics who had successfully increased their independence and successfully moved out of the service to live more independently. Staff also recognised when people became more settled and milestones they achieved towards independence.

Staff gave us examples of observing Halal and culturally important meal preparations to ensure people’s needs were met. Staff also advocated for people so they would have the funding they needed to continue enjoying spending time in the community.

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.

Staff understood what was important to people and their future goals. They supported people to develop skills and independence through achievable steps. One person wanted to move to more independent living. Staff supported them to develop cooking, personal care, household, budgeting and independent travel skills to help them work towards this goal.

Care plans did not always clearly reflect people’s goals or how staff should support them to achieve these. However, the manager had started to address this. One recently reviewed care plan broke the person’s desired outcomes into achievable short-term goals and provided staff with clear guidance on how to support their progress.