Wrottesley Park House 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.

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 75 (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.

People and relatives felt their care was individual. One person told us, “They support my privacy and dignity. I only have female carers to provide my personal care, even hoisting as I’m not always dressed so I only like female carers to hoist me. They respect that.”

The provider delivered individual care to people, they had considered people’s differing needs within the home and adapted activities to suit people. For example, people were given the opportunity to develop their skills by attending cooking demonstrations by the chef which promoted independence.

There were systems in place to ensure people were involved with the planning, monitoring and reviewing of their care, this meant people were at the centre of this.

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.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure people’s care was regularly reviewed and updated, this included planned reviews or when changes occurred. The provider ensured there were systems in place to share this information or changes with staff so people could receive consistent care.

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

People and relatives were happy with how information was provided to them.

People had individual care plans in place which considered how they communicated, the support they may need and any communication aids that people used. Some people used Makaton, and some staff had received training in this, so they could share this with other staff. Makaton is a language programme that uses speech, signs and symbols for people with learning and communication difficulties. Information was displayed in various formats for people around the home including pictorial menus and easy read versions of procedures.

The provider shared that information was available to people in different formats if they required this.

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.

People and relatives felt listened to and involved with their care and knew how to complain. One person said, “There’s no reason to complain. Another person told us, “I have made a complaint, and it’s improved since.”

Feeback was sought from people regularly, either through meetings or surveys. Information was displayed in the home in the form of a ‘You said, we did board’ where it showed the action that had been taken when people had made suggestions. The feedback we viewed from people, staff and visiting professionals was positive.

There was a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in line with the providers own policy and procedure.

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

People and relatives raised no concerns with the access they had to other health professionals.

The provider told us they worked alongside external agencies including the Integrated Care Board (ICB) who had completed a recent visit whom they could engage with if needed.

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.

As people’s care was tailored to their needs and the right support, right care, and right culture guidance was considered, people’s people experiences were positive. People were listened to and involved with the process, which meant the outcomes people received were in line with their wishes and therefore positive.

The registered manager understood and considered the importance of ensuring people were involved and listened to and considered any inequalities and barriers they may face.

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.

End of life care plans were in place for people when needed. People and those important to them had been involved with this process. Plans had considered people’s choices and preferences during this time and any medicines they may need.