The Vineries

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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.

Whilst we were assured that staff were kind, mostly knowledgeable and were led by documentation that laid out people’s needs clearly. We were not assured that the well-being of staff was always prioritised by the provider or a genuine recognition of how staff were working under pressure. Staff were frustrated by the lack of activities for people and the fact care had become task focused due to the demands of the service.

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.

Care was joint up and there was good partnership working. Integration with the wider community required improvement.

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

Information governance would be improved by more effective record keeping and electronic systems. However, information sharing was good and people and their relatives felt well informed.

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 felt informed and consulted about their care. However, improvements were not always identified or documented.

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

Regular GP surgeries meant people’s needs were reviewed and staff advocated for people to ensure their needs were met.

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.

People settled well and were supported by staff who understood their needs. Care outcomes were improved by staff experience and training. The service was clear about what needs they could support and considered compatibility of residents.

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.

Because care plans were reviewed and people’s wishes sought staff knew about peoples wishes particularly around end-of-life care and how and by whom this would be provided.