Waxham 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.

This is the first assessment for this service since registration under the new provider. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to person centred care.
 

This service scored 61 (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.

The provider failed to work in partnership with people. For example, the provider failed to engage with people when planning their care and support. This meant care planning and reviewing was done to, rather than with, people and those important to them.

People’s care plans did not always fully reflect their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Care plans were generic, lacked detail and did not always reflect the complexity of people’s needs or give sufficient information to support staff in delivering person-centred care. They did not contain information about people’s cultural and religious beliefs, nor information about the person’s life history. Whilst care plans contained some information about the level of support people required, these did not always include details about what people could do for themselves to maintain as much independence as possible.

Staff told us care plans were an area for development. Comments from staff included, “Could improve and be more person centred”, “Could be improved” and “We can understand it but could be improved”.

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 were supported to access relevant healthcare professionals they needed, when they needed them.

A professional told us the provider was “very responsive and in regular contact” and that staff “respond quickly to calls and emails”.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were assessed during the assessment process, with information recorded about how staff should communicate with them. This included information on any equipment used to improve communication, such as glasses and hearing aids.
 

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People’s and relatives' views were sought through questionnaires. The provider also completed reports on their conversations with people and relatives to obtain feedback. These reports contained information about discussions that took place and demonstrated people were given the opportunity to share any concerns. People told us they felt listened to.
 

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

The provider ensured people who had a disability that impacted their ability to contact health services, care or wellbeing support, were supported to have equitable access to relevant healthcare professionals.

People told us they had exercises to do from the physiotherapists and others told us they had health appointments they attended routinely.
 

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The provider failed to consistently consider or implement all relevant best practice guidance for dementia friendly care environments. People’s independence was not always promoted due to the lack of clear, accessible and dementia friendly signage. For example, people’s bedroom doors did not show people’s names or other assistance for them to recognise their room.
 

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.

Records contained information in relation to people’s wishes, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions. However, these lacked some detail. For example, some end-of-life care plans were basic, not person centred and contained shortfalls in information. Whilst some contained information of funeral directors and burial / cremation details, end of life care plans did not detail the person’s spiritual and cultural needs, involvement of family and friends, reassurance about pain management and obtaining anticipatory medicines. Where anticipatory medicines were in place, there was no detailed information in care plans as to when these medicines should be started and how they should be used or contact details for specialist staff to in the event of a person’s health deteriorating.