Boston West Care

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.

People were supported by a consistent and familiar staff team who knew them well, contributing to continuity and personalised care. Staff demonstrated understanding of people’s needs and preferences. Whilst we identified care records were not always fully reflective of current needs, the provider had already identified these documentation shortfalls prior to inspection and was actively addressing them. An improvement plan was in place with a target date for completion.

Peoples care plans offered outcome-based guidance, including information about people’s holistic care and treatment needs. Relatives reported being fully involved in discussions and decisions regarding care planning. Although this involvement was not always formally recorded, steps were being taken to improve documentation of input from individuals and their relatives or representatives.

A ‘resident of the day’ initiative had recently been introduced, which included recorded consultations with the person and relevant others, where possible. Relatives also confirmed that communication was effective and that they were kept informed of any changes to their family member’s needs.

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.

Overall, the staff team was stable and knew people’s individual care and treatment needs. This provided consistency and continuity of care and treatment.

The manager told us of their commitment to developing positive working relationships with external stakeholders and health and social care professionals to further develop the service.

Staff worked with other professionals to make sure people’s needs were met. The service was supported by the local GP surgery and a representative visited weekly.

The provider was able to provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. However, people’s communication care plans did not consistently reflect the sensory needs of people and the impact on their communication.

The provider was broadly meeting the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard, ensuring that information and communication were tailored to meet individuals’ needs. However, improvements were required to strengthen the detail and clarity within communication care plans.

Specifically, care plans lacked sufficient information about people’s sensory needs, the impact on their communication, and the specific actions required of staff to support them effectively. Despite these gaps, relatives expressed confidence in how their family members’ communication needs were being met.

The manager confirmed that a full review of care records was underway, with active steps being taken to enhance documentation and ensure more comprehensive and person-centred support planning.

The provider demonstrated a commitment to accessible communication by displaying how information could be made available in a variety of formats upon request, including easy-read and large print versions.

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

Environmental features such as signage were effectively used to support orientation, helping people navigate the service independently and confidently.

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.

People received opportunities to share their experience of the service and make suggestions. The provider actively encouraged feedback through various means, including a suggestion box in the reception area and resident and relative meetings and surveys. These opportunities enabled people and others to share their experiences and make suggestions for improvement. Feedback was analysed with outcomes shared in a ‘You said, We did’ document.

The provider’s complaint policy was communicated and accessible to both people using the service and their visitors and was included in the service user guide to promote awareness and understanding.

Staff were observed involving individuals in day-to-day decisions about their care. Effective communication techniques were consistently used, including speaking at eye level, using the person’s first language as far as possible, and confirming understanding, ensuring respectful, person-centred engagement.

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

Staff continually assessed and monitored people’s individual care and treatment needs and ensured changes in needs were quickly and efficiently acted upon.

For example, when a person’s mobility needs changed, staff arranged for an occupational therapy assessment. When a person showed signs of sudden illness or had sustained an injury from a fall, staff acted quickly to contact emergency services and provided immediate support while awaiting medical assistance. Where a person requested a change to their pain management regime, this was responded to quickly and followed up with the GP.

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 management team worked proactively to support people to have equal access to opportunities, experiences, and positive outcomes. This was supported through structured practices such as daily staff handovers, the ‘resident of the day’ initiative, resident and relative meetings, and ongoing care record monitoring. This contributed to consistent, fair and equal person-centred care delivery.

For example, where people chose to remain in their bedrooms or had mobility-related dependency needs, staff ensured they had equal access to participate in daily activities. This approach supported social inclusion and upheld each person’s right to meaningful engagement, regardless of physical needs or personal preferences.

People were not always 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.

People’s wishes regarding DNACPR and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) and any Advanced Decisions were recorded. This important information supported the staff to be informed in advance of people’s wishes and decisions.

End of life care planning, including discussions around funeral arrangements, was identified as an area requiring improvement. While the service demonstrated a commitment to person-centred care, further development was needed to ensure that sensitive conversations about end of life preferences were consistently initiated, documented, and acted upon in a timely and respectful manner.

Staff had received end of life care training.