Parry Healthcare Wiltshire

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 requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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. They did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. The location manager and registered manager visited people regularly to discuss their needs.

Staff told us that ‘person centred care is one of our mottos’. Staff told us they always checked what people wanted and how they like things done. However, people and relatives told us that they were not aware of who was visiting in advance and that frequently they did not recognise the staff member who visited them. We were told that staff do not always interpret the person’s communication correctly and assume their vocalisation is meaning yes. We were told ‘I wish people would take more time to talk to [person]’. This meant that people may not always have been supported in a person-centred way.

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. The provider had a continuity plan in place which identified options in the event of adverse events. Staff told us they received their working hours in advance. People told us that the location manager was easy to contact. However, people we spoke to said that they did not know which staff would be visiting. This meant that people were not always in control of planning their care and support.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We were told by the registered manager that assistive technology was used to translate information into people’s preferred language. The provider offered documents in large print where needed. However, people we spoke to said that they had received information but did not fully understand it.

The provider provided opportunity for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People were provided with clear information on how to raise complaints. The provider had records of complaints that included the feedback given to the person. We saw the provider had a complaints policy which set clear expectations of how to complain and what the provider would do in response.

However, people told us that when they raised a complaint it sometimes took a few days for the provider to respond to them. They told us that although a complaint is addressed by the provider and they take action to resolve it, this does not always prevent the problem from happening again.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Communication aids were used to ensure people could indicate their needs for support. The provider contacted other healthcare professionals when people required equipment or additional support.

However, people told us that they did not have access to information about which staff member would be supporting them as this was held electronically. One person said, ‘I wish they would just write it on a piece of paper’. We were told that staff wore name badges to identify them. However, some people told us that their eyesight meant these were too small for them to see.

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. The registered manager told us they supported people who were more likely to experience inequality due to their religious beliefs or sexual orientation. People’s care plans contained details of their religious requirements and preferred pronouns.

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. We saw that care plans contained clear details of people’s wishes with regard to their end-of-life plans. This included information about where documents related to end of life were stored. This meant staff could access the information easily if required. Staff told us that if a person they supported had a goal, the staff would communicate it to a manager and give ‘any support they could to make it happen’.