Harper house - Wolverhampton

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 the service under this provider. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 could not demonstrate that people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices to ensure care was consistently delivered in a person centred manner.

Care records contained information about people’s individual preferences and how they wished to receive their care. These records also showed evidence of goal setting. However, it was not clear if people had been actively involved in this process, including the setting and reviewing of goals and people could not confirm their involvement. This meant we could not be assured that care was planned and delivered in a person centred manner.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Consistent care could not always be provided as some care plans did not contain the information required to support people to eat foods that met their individual needs.

Although care plans relating to other aspects of people’s care and support were detailed, staff were not always aware of this information which meant people were at risk of receiving inconsistent and unsuitable care. For example, staff were not always aware of which people had legal restrictions placed upon them in DoLS authorisations.

However, the provider told us people received care and support from a consistent group of staff and agency staff were not utilised.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People and relatives were happy with how information was provided to them.

The provider told us information was available to people in different formats if they required this. We saw there were references to how people communicated in their care plans and information was available for staff to follow to support people to understand what was being communicated to them. Staff confirmed to us they were aware of how people communicated.

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

People and their relatives could not confirm they were actively involved in the planning and review of their care and support. There were no records to show how people and those important to them were currently involved with this process. We could not be assured that people’s feedback was effectively sought as the managers and provider had not identified that some people were unhappy living at the service.

The provider told us surveys were completed to gain feedback about care. However, no feedback was shared with us to review.

However, there was a complaints policy in place and the provider told us no recent complaints had been made.

Effective systems were not in place to ensure all people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were unable to consistently access the community when they wished to do so because of staffing restrictions as reported on under meeting people’s immediate needs under the caring key question.

However, referrals were made to health and social care professionals when people’s needs changed which meant people were supported to access external health and social care support if this need was identified.

Effective systems were not in place to ensure people consistently experienced positive experiences and outcomes.

Although care plans contained evidence of goal setting. There was no evidence to show progress towards achieving these goals was regularly monitored or reviewed with people’s active involvement. This meant we could not be assured that people were consistently achieving positive outcomes and having positive experiences.

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.

Although no one was in receipt of end of life care at the time of our inspection, care records contained detailed information about people’s end of life care wishes. These were personalised to each individual.

However, staff told us and training records showed staff had not completed training in end of life care. This meant there was a risk people may not receive high quality end of life care should they require this.