Winchester Heights Care Home

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 under the new legal entities. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

We observed 6 people on the third floor which accommodated people living with dementia. People were sat in the dining room for 2 hours between breakfast and lunch. There was 1 staff member supporting people during this time. There was a lack of meaningful activity and engagement for these people. The staff member ensured people were encouraged to drink, however, did not have time to offer meaningful engagement that was not task orientated. People appeared disengaged either sleeping, sat in a wheelchair or attempting to get up and being asked to stay seated. The staff member explained they could not leave 1 person who was at high risk of falls. We spoke with the provider about this who told us, “Between breakfast and lunch, residents continued to receive personalised care, including handwashing, continence support tailored to individual requirements, changing and cleaning, skin integrity checks, and positional changes for pressure relief.”

A further 9 staff arrived at lunch time to support with the dining experience. During the lunch period we observed staff and their interaction with people. They were kind, caring and provided person-centred support. For example, sitting to 1 side of people to support them, ensuring dignity and respect.

A professional involved in the service told us, “They offer appropriate activities and take people out as much as they can.” The provider had a minibus which was used 2 or 3 times a week for planned trips. One staff member told us, “We try to involve people in everything, and they have helped choose activities.”

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 consistently supported people to make choices. People and their relatives told us, and documents demonstrated, people had access to appropriate healthcare when required and that staff fully engaged with the process.

Staff had completed training and understood the Equality Act. The registered manager told us how they collaborated with healthcare professionals to ensure care was joined up. They told us, “If a dentist is required ad hoc we support with appointments, some people have private dentist providers, and this is also supported.”

One person told us they had acquired an injury, medical attention had been sought and a district nurse was arranged to visit daily.

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

People had access to policies in different formats, for example, large print. A professional involved with the service told us, “We put in a condition a while back that a person needed a communication board and they got it in straight away, it was there when I checked.”

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.

Staff knew people well. People and their relatives told us if they had a complaint, they would raise it with the registered manager or senior staff and felt sure it would be dealt with quickly and appropriately. A relative told us, “They have quarterly family meetings, and they update us on the home and ask for improvement suggestions.” People told us they did not have any complaints or concerns.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Each person had up-to-date summaries of their care needs in place. This could be shared with other professionals and helped to reduce potential barriers to care within the health and social care system.

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 treated people as individuals and adjusted care and support to meet individuals’ needs and preferences. Staff understood how the Equality Act (2010) applied to their role. The registered manager and staff gave us examples of how people’s outcomes had been improved since living at the service.

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.

Where people were willing to discuss their end of life and emergency situations, ReSPECT forms were in place. The ReSPECT process creates personalised recommendations for a person’s clinical care and treatment in a future emergency in which they are unable to make or express choices. People’s wishes were respected if they chose not to discuss their end of life at this current time.