Archived: The White House

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has remained inadequate.

This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the lack of person-centred care.

This service scored 34 (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.

As noted in a previous inspection, care plans had limited information on people’s life histories and leaders and staff we spoke with lacked knowledge of this. Knowing the life history of people living with dementia is crucial for staff because it informs their care and support, promotes person-centeredness, and helps understand their behaviours and communication needs. This knowledge enhances relationships, strengthens identity, and allows for more meaningful interactions.

People's care plans required more detailed information to enable staff to understand their support needs and relevant risks. For example, records showed 1 person may need additional support and encouraged to have personal care. However, there was not sufficient information on how staff members should provide that support.

Care plans did not inform staff of people’s strengths and the type and level of support they needed to keep their best independence and promote their wellbeing. The service was not pro-active in making sure people did not experience loneliness, boredom, and frustration.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. We found that people and the majority of relatives were not consistently involved in reviewing their care and support needs. There were also no systems in place to gain valuable feedback from people and relatives. The manager told us that residents and relative meetings were not taking place. Staff meetings did take place, but there was little evidence to show they were used effectively to improve care and communication. We saw from the minutes of the staff meetings that staff had not directly been asked for feedback. Instead, the meetings were around reminding staff what they should and should not be doing, without asking staff if there were any barriers to be able to do their job effectively.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People were not 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 did not contain any information to guide staff how to care for them aside from whether they wanted to be resuscitated and whether they wanted to go to hospital. This meant they may not have information to meet the person’s needs effectively and compassionately. These findings raise concerns about the adequacy and reliability of end-of-life care planning, which is essential to ensure dignity, comfort, and support for people at the final stage of life.