WSB Care Ltd

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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. Relatives told us their family members received person-centred care, that met their needs and were involved in the planning and review of their care. Relatives told us staff knew their family members well and listened to them, with one saying, “I feel they listen and provide helpful suggestions.” A second relative told us, “They know [Family Member] so well, each staff member has topics and interests that they can talk to [Family Member] about. One is into football which [Family Member] really enjoys. They have really worked out what they can talk to [Family Member] about.”

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. A review of staff training records showed they attended training in topics that may affect the people who used the service. Feedback from relatives told us staff understood and met their family member’s needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs had been assessed, and they were provided with information about the service to help them made decisions and choices. People received a rota so they knew who would be supporting them and were advised in advance if there were any changes to the staff member visiting them. The provider confirmed information was available to people in different formats.

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. The provider had several processes in place to allow for people and their relatives to share feedback on the service. This included regular visits to people’s homes by one of the providers, formal reviews, surveys and informal discussions. There was a complaints process in place but the provider had not received any formal complaints. They also had a concerns log, where they noted anything that was not referred as a formal complaint. A relative told us how the provider was quick to respond when they raised a concern. Records we reviewed confirmed the provider was quick to take remedial action.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People received effective care from a small group of staff who arrived on time and stayed for the allocated time of the visit. Records we reviewed confirmed this. One relative told us, “The thing I like is that my [Family Member] has 4 visits a day and [Family Member] has about 5 staff that [Family Member] sees all the time.”

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’s relatives told us staff were competent and skilled in supporting their family member’s individual needs considering their preferences, strengths and vulnerabilities. One person’s relative said, “I couldn’t fault them. They were very professional and knew what they were doing.” Staff had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion and other topics which affected the group of people they supported. When we spoke with staff, they were able to demonstrate they understood the challenges people faced.

People were not always 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. We received positive feedback about the end-of-life care one person received. However, a review of people’s care records showed there were no care plans in place for such events. Some people had Respect forms in place. This was a decision people had made not to have treatment in the event of a cardiac arrest. This was discussed with the provider who gave assurances they understood the importance of this and would arrange to visit people to discuss their end of life wishes.