Wiltshire Base

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 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.

The registered manager said, “One of our values is providing person-centred care, we ensure that each client gets tailored care to their needs. We make sure people have a care plan for staff to follow and provide person-centred care.”

People had an individual care plan which recorded all of their needs, wishes and preferences. Care plans were reviewed when needed or at formal care reviews. The provider told us if people or relatives wanted access to care plans, this could be arranged.

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.

People had a core group of staff supporting them who had been matched to their needs. This provided people with a continuity to their care as they were seeing the same staff consistently. People knew which staff were coming to visit and any changes to the staff rotas were shared with people ahead of their visit.

Feedback about how the service managed transitions between services was positive. One relative said, “They [staff] listened, did a lovely handover document and a simplified version for [person] with pictures and simple text which meant [person] still felt part of the process.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager told us that information could be adapted and shared in different ways. For example, easy read, pictorial or different fonts. They said, “I will identify any communication needs when we get referrals. If people have hearing or visual impairments, I will take information suited to the person when I do the initial assessment.”

The provider gave people a service user guide with lots of information about the service and the organisation. This information could also be produced in an easy read format to help people who struggled to read lots of text.

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 had a comprehensive complaints policy which outlined their process for managing complaints. This included expected timescales for investigating and responding to people’s concerns. The policy also signposted people to other organisations if they were not satisfied with how their complaint was managed.

People had copies of a simpler version of the complaints policy in the service user guide which was given to people when they started using the service.

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

The provider had an on-call system which enabled people and staff to contact management at any time for advice, guidance or to share concerns. This helped to make sure people had their planned care when they wanted it, for example, if staff were ill cover could be provided in a timely way. The provider regularly checked people’s visit times on their electronic system. This helped them monitor that people were getting their care at their preferred time and for the correct duration.

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 provider was aware of possible discrimination people may face. They said, “We create a safe environment for people, they feel able to share their concerns with us. We listen but we don’t judge. Whatever experiences people have, we listen and if they want us to, we can act on their behalf.”

People and relatives did not raise any concerns about being treated less favourably and we did not see any evidence people were experiencing inconsistent care.

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.

There was no end-of-life care being provided at the time of this assessment. However, the provider said they could offer this type of care when needed. The provider said, “We can consider this type of care, and we have given training to the staff.”

If people had a DNAR agreement (Do Not attempt resuscitation) it was recorded in their care records. Staff had guidance on where the agreement was in case, they needed to share this with any emergency medical staff.