244 Wootton Road

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 inspection we rated this key question Good. At this inspection the rating has remained 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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The care plans viewed on-site had not always been updated to include people’s current needs. The service provided care plans which had been updated; however, these had not been kept on-site.

We also found that some risk assessments that were in place for people had not been regularly reviewed. We did not see that relatives had been invited to care reviews, until the inspection process was in progress.

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. Staff had a good working relationship with local health professionals and made sure that people received joined up care.

Staff had good working relationships with local health professionals and made sure people received joined up care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People received information in a way that met their individual needs. For example, Pictorial Exchange Communication System (PECS), Makaton and British Sign Language (BSL). The menus contained pictures of the dishes offered. This enabled people to make informed choices.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas about their care, treatment and support.

We received mix feedback from families, 1 person told us, “I don’t hear from them much. They did contact me recently though, as [they] had a medical issue, otherwise I don’t really hear from them”. While another family member said, “They’d let me know if there was an issue.”

We did not receive evidence that feedback had been sought from people’s relatives or external professionals prior to the inspection. The manager informed us that feedback surveys had been sent out during the inspection.

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

People were supported to attend appointments such as hospital, dental and opticians. Where people's needs made attending appointments distressing, where possible they were arranged to be held at the home.

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.

Staff worked pro-actively with local healthcare professionals to ensure people could access services when they needed to.

People were actively encouraged to socialise in the community and enjoy holidays with the support of staff and the manager.

People had individualised equality, diversity and inclusion plans in place.

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 found from the care plans viewed that not all people had any advanced decisions or plans recorded, where recorded, they were detailed and included detailed information. However, support plans for people included their goals and aspirations