The New Wycliffe 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 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 68 (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. However, this was an area of continued improvement.

People and relatives repeatedly told us they had not been involved in the development or review of care plans. Relatives additionally told us they had experienced poor communication whereby they struggled to seek information about their relations care or receive responses and follow up in a timely manner.

We identified some concerns in relation consistency of care and attention for all people. Some people either chose to remain in their bedrooms or required to receive their care in bed. From reviewing a sample of these people’s care records, we identified limited recorded details of staff engagement other than providing direct care tasks. We were not sufficiently assured these people consistently received adequate levels of stimulation and engagement across shifts. We discussed this with the manager who agreed to follow this up.

Improvements had been made and were ongoing, in relation to people’s care plans to ensure guidance for staff was comprehensive to enable them to provide person centred care. From the sample of updated care plans we reviewed, we found information included refence to people’s routines, preferences, religious and cultural needs and social and family history.

Activity staff supported people to participate in a programme of activities. This included group and individual one to one time. Activities were based on people’s known interests and pastimes, including themed days, religious and cultural celebrations. External visitors also provided activities and were popular with people. The provider had their own transport and drivers that staff could access to support community activities. People enjoyed weekly visits to a variety of community places including to a local temple and church.

Staff recognised and respected people’s individual religious and cultural needs and supported some people to pray. This was confirmed by a relative who said, “I'm confident that staff respect [relation’s] individual needs and wishes because they do have a bath every day before they can pray, this is in accordance with their Hindu culture.”

Community links had been developed and students from a local college had recently visited for 3 days as part of their community support studies. The activity coordinator told us this had been a great success for both students and people who used the service. We saw photographs that confirmed what we were told.

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. However, improvements were ongoing to ensure people received consistent care and support.

Staff worked with other professionals to make sure people’s needs were met. Improvements had been made and were ongoing, in how staff and external professionals worked together to meet people’s care needs. The GP or a healthcare representative visited the service weekly, enabling people to have direct contact with a health professional.

The service had experienced a high turnover of staff. People and relatives told us they were confident experienced staff knew and understood their individual needs well, but new and agency staff did not, and this was a concern to them. We were aware the use of agency staff had reduced as permanent staff had been recruited. Improvements had been made and were ongoing, in ensuring staff had up to date and detailed guidance about people’s care needs to ensure consistency and continuity in care.

The manager told us and records confirmed, of action taken to support the staff to provide consistent care. This included reviewing and improving the staff handover procedure to ensure important information about people’s needs were exchanged effectively. Two deputies had been recruited to strengthen the management team and support to staff. A member of the management team were onsite 7 days a week.

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

The Accessible Information Standard (a legal requirement for social care providers to ensure information and communication is provided in a way that meets people’s needs and can understand) was being met.

People’s communication needs had been assessed and planned for. This supported staff to understand people’s individual communication needs and preferences. We observed staff communicating with people effectively, this included communicating with people in their first language.

Information was provided in ways that supported people’s understanding. This included providing information in easy read, large print and alternative languages. The manager told us how they ensured people who were registered blind or who had a sight impairment were supported to access information.

The provider had a data protection policy and procedure and understood their responsibilities of protecting people’s and staff’s confidential information.

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.

Resident meetings had recently been reintroduced. These meeting records confirmed people received an opportunity to share their experience of the service and share any ideas, suggestions or requests to make improvements. A ‘you said, we did’ document was developed and displayed for people to confirm actions taken. Example of actions taken in response to feedback was an increase in activity opportunities.

The provider enabled people, relatives, staff, visitors and external professionals to ‘give feedback on care via a ‘QA code’. This gave people an opportunity to provide feedback via a survey that went directly to the provider who used this information to support them to make improvements where required.

At the time of the inspection, the manager was unable to share any survey, feedback results and actions. People and relatives were unable to recall being asked to complete a provider survey or questionnaire about their experience of the service.

The provider’s complaint policy had been made available to people and visitors, and this was also included in the service user guide. From the examples of complaints reviewed, these confirmed actions had been taken to investigate, and the outcome shared with the complainant. This was completed in line with the provider’s complaint policy.

We observed staff involving people in discussions and decisions about their day to day care. Staff used effective communication such as speaking with people at eye level, speaking in the person’s first language were unrushed, ensuring they understood the person’s response.

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 were able to access care and support that met their individual care needs, routines and preferences. Improvements had been made and were ongoing, to ensure staff had access to information about people’s unique histories and the things that were important to them.

Staff and the management team advocated on behalf of people to ensure they had access to health services when they needed. There were no language barriers, where English was not people’s first language, staff were available who could communicate in the person’s first and or preferred language.

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 were able to access care and support that met their individual care needs, routines and preferences. Improvements had been made and were ongoing, to ensure staff had access to information about people’s unique histories and the things that were important to them.

Staff and the management team advocated on behalf of people to ensure they had access to health services when they needed. There were no language barriers, where English was not people’s first language, staff were available who could communicate in the person’s first and or preferred language.

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.

Staff had received training in end of life care.

People’s wishes regarding end of life care and treatment was discussed, recorded and planned with them. We saw examples of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) and Advanced Decisions.

There was an internal process and procedure outlining how this information was shared with staff in the event it was required. This important information was known and understood by staff.

We saw examples of care records that confirmed people’s funeral plan wishes had been discussed and recorded.