Wilkinson Park

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. However, treatment support did not always provide consistent outcomes for people.

People’s needs were assessed and reviewed to ensure the service could continue to support them. Care plans were detailed and included good information about how to support people. Staff worked together to support people to lead individual lives. People were not always supported to live healthier lives due to a lack of activities and the quality of food. Consent and permissions were sought although some areas were lacking.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s care plans provided detailed information about their individual needs and how staff could best support them. Preadmission assessments were undertaken, and this often involved multiple professionals.

Staff told us once people were settled at the home their needs were reviewed, to ensure staff could best support them. A professional told us, “I’ve experienced [registered manager] and [deputy manager] being person centred, willing to negotiate and listen to the wishes and feelings of residents.”

Regular reviews of care were undertaken. People told us staff made every effort to involve them in decisions.

Some people living at the home were working towards moving into alternative accommodation in the community and living more independently. A professional told us, “I had one resident who had a difficult exit from the service. I was struck that staff persisted in the exit plan to make sure they were safe when they could easily have withdrawn. There was also evidence of support from senior managers in the process.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People told us they were involved in planning care to the level they wished to be and were involved in reviews of care on most occasions. Professionals felt that joint working between the home and other services was improving. A professional told us, “I have seen evidence that they support individuals to develop skills (cooking, budgeting, managing safety in the community). I’ve felt confident in reviews that the pacing and timing of this is proportionate and that staff have a good balance between respecting an individual’s wishes and feelings and not placing them at risk. “

Staff were largely up to date with key training across a range of areas. Staff felt the training provided them with the right skills to support people. They said they could seek additional advice, if they were unsure.

Care plans were detailed and followed professional advice, such as that from Speech and Language Therapists on people’s diet consistency and food presentation.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People’s care plans were comprehensive and detailed. Care plans encompassed information from all relevant sources to ensure people received appropriate support. Staff told us that team members worked together closely and communicated to ensure people’s needs were met.

Professionals told us managers at the home worked hard to ensure that there was a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to care, whilst also involving individuals. A professional told us, “I’m encouraged that my residents have felt able to contact me when they have worries or questions about their accommodation or finances and have felt happy progressing to a shared discussion with the managers.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People told us they felt more could be done to provide meaningful activities at the service. Whilst there were some organised events and activities, they were not consistent and there was no clear programme to try and engage people in both physical and mental activities. At the previous inspection the provider had told us there were plans for an allotment and gym to be established at the service. These facilities had still not been actioned. The registered manager told us gym equipment had been purchased but was currently stored elsewhere. Plans for the garden area and allotment were still to be finalised. A person told us, “It feels there are things that need sorting out. I want to set up an allotment, but this has not been sorted out yet.”

Professionals had mixed views on activities at the service. Comments included, “There is not enough for the residents to do. There is a lack of activities for everyone” and “There always seems to be a good timetable of activities going on when I visit, from meals to planned trips.”

Meal choices were provided, and kitchen staff were aware of the dietary requirements of some people, such as allergies or specialist diets. Specialist diets were not always appealingly presented. We spoke with the registered manager about this and how it could be improved.

A small number of people were identified as diet controlled diabetic. Kitchen staff seemed less sure as to how these people should be specifically supported, and how meal choices could be adapted, although there was no evidence anyone had come to harm.

Relatives had mixed views of the meals provided at the home. They told us, “The food is okay” and “It’s not what I would call a healthy diet.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Care plans demonstrated that people’s care was regularly reviewed and updated to ensure that it met their needs. Care staff had a good understanding of people’s care needs and were able to identify issues and provide feedback to health professionals regarding changing support. Some people had identified goals they were working towards achieving, such as improving kitchen skills.

People were encouraged to develop skills whilst at the home. One person had recently completed a qualification in gardening and was looking to implement their skills at the home and further develop their interest. Another person had completed a first aid course, along with staff from the service.

Professionals told us they felt the service actively supported people to progress and develop. A professional said, “I have seen evidence that they support individuals to develop skills (cooking, budgeting, managing safety in the community). I have one resident who has made sufficient progress to identify a less supported setting as his likely exit route.”

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

There was evidence in people’s care records that consent had been considered. We observed consent being sought from people on a day-to-day basis. Many people living at the home were able to make a range of choices about how they wished to live and what activities they wanted to be involved in. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, for particular activities or circumstances, then best interests decisions had been taken to ensure they received the correct care.

The service had a range of CCTV equipment installed, to help monitor the home to ensure people and staff were safe. There was no evidence in people’s care plans that they had specifically consented to, or been made aware, of the CCTV in operation. Additionally, there was not obvious signage on entering the building to advise visitors that CCTV recording was taking place. We spoke with the registered manager about this and ensuring the matter was addressed.