Gwen Walford 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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. Most people’s care plans were personalised and specific to people’s needs, choices and wishes, however some clinical care plans lacked personalisation. For example, with 1 person’s information in their care plan was unclear on their neurological condition and another person’s care plan lacked information regarding the use of a specific device to manage their diabetes. Whilst we saw no impact to people, we shared this with the management team, who had identified the need for improvement with personalising clinical care protocols following an internal auditing process. Peoples care plans were amended and shared with us during the inspection process. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of what peoples care plans entailed and were able to share specific details of people’s preferences.

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. External healthcare professionals were involved in advising and supporting the care people received. There were regular healthcare professionals which visited the home, these included GPs. The registered manager told us “The GP send us an email with everybody's notes, we will put this in the daily notes, they will be highlighted at handover and discussed”. There were several other providers which visited the service to offer different activities and group sessions, some of these included exercise and music groups and music therapy sessions. There were future plans for a pantomime session and reindeers to visit over the festive season.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were assessed and documented in their care plans and staff demonstrated good knowledge of Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Relatives told us they were kept updated of any changes in relation to their loved one’s needs and said communication with the service was good. The provider had an AIS poster “Your information Your way“ which offered people living at the service the opportunity to have information in different formats. There was information available around the service, for example on noticeboards for people and relatives. People and relatives had access to ‘The Rotherwood Times’ newspaper which detailed news from the provider’s homes such as staffing updates, celebrations, achievements and activities.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People and relatives told us they were kept updated about events at the service, which also gathered feedback from people using the service, families, staff in the form of surveys. A summary of the outcomes was produced in a "You Said, We reviewed" format. There were limited responses from people living at Gwen Walford House, although feedback from all sources had been considered. As a result of some feedback, the management team made themselves more visible within the home. They have lunch with people in the dining room and join in with activities and to ensure people felt there is a management presence. Leaders shared the clinical lead also works in the homes communal areas to provide more accessible oversight to people and their families. People and relatives told us they knew where to raise a complaint and would speak directly with either a staff member, nurse or the registered manager if needed. One relative told us, “Only complaint has been around the hoovering and laundry, but it was sorted and is perfect now. I would go to the registered manager or the head nurse”. There was a digital reception system in place enabling visitors to leave feedback at the end of each visit. If there was any indication the visitor was unhappy with their experience, an automatic email alert is sent in real time to both the home manager and the regional manager. This allows them to address any concerns they may receive immediately. The management team also actively monitored and responded to online feedback received.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Leaders and staff supported people to access care, support and treatment when they needed it. This was evidenced in people’s care plans care which provided staff with an overview of their needs and any barriers they might experience in receiving care, support and treatment. For example, mobility and accessibility or communication barriers. Referrals were made to external professionals when it had been identified by the service they were required.

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 and their relatives reported no concerns related to discrimination or unequal experiences. Staff had completed the relevant mandatory training requirements.

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. Care plans detailed people’s choices and decisions. People had ReSPECT forms in place. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment and ensures their personal wishes are followed. These were reviewed regularly. The registered manager told us they worked alongside St Michaels hospice to support people at end stage of their lives. St Michaels hospice also provided support and additional training to staff. This meant people received good, dignified care at the end stages of their life.