Sister Winifred Laver Promoting Independence Centre

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans had been reviewed and updated; however they required further development to fully reflect people’s rehabilitation needs and goals.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Staff continued to give mixed feedback about communication and teamwork. Care plans also required further development, so they accurately informed staff about people’s preferences and their rehabilitation goals and aspirations.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Communication care plans had been reviewed and updated.

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 did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Care plans continued to be unclear about how other services integrated with the care provided. Care staff and professionals used different systems for recording information, which needed further work to be fully integrated.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Care was not planned effectively to ensure people’s rehabilitation needs were prioritised.

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. However, nobody received end of life care at the time of this inspection.