Wisteria Care

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to consent.

This service scored 54 (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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

There was a process in place for assessing people’s needs, however this process did not always ensure staff had relevant up to date information and guidance. For example, 1 person’s assessment identified they had a health condition and needed support with a catheter. The person started using the service on 23 February 2026, at the time of our assessment visit there was no care plan, guidance or information for staff relating to the support needed with the catheter. We also found people’s changing needs were not always accurate or up to date in their care plans.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The lack of guidance in care plans and risk assessments and inconsistent medicines practice meant the service could not fully evidence that care provided to people aligned with best practice guidance. This placed people at risk of receiving unsafe and ineffective care.

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.

Staff and the management team provided us with examples of how they worked with health and social care professionals to support people’s needs. For example, occupational therapists and commissioners. We received some mixed feedback from professionals. One professional told us, “My experience of working with Wisteria Care has been positive and they work effectively. Communication is consistently responsive and cooperative, and they engage well in reviews and discharge planning, providing information promptly when required.” Another professional told us they thought communication and record keeping could be improved.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

The provider supported people to maintain their health, but this was not always proactive or consistently informed by staff knowledge and training. Some staff were unsure about recognising signs of deterioration and managing long term conditions such as diabetes. This variability in staff knowledge reduced the provider’s ability to consistently support people to live healthier lives.

We found an example’s where a person who was taking a high-risk medicine had a fall, staff contacted the office, but no medical advice was sought. There was no guidance in place informing staff they should contact a medical professional in the event of the person falling.

People however told us staff summoned medical assistance for them when required. One person told us, “If I were unwell, they would act appropriately and get help.” Another person commented, “Carers always react appropriately if I am unwell, I recently fell out of my wheelchair, so they phoned an ambulance, they have helped me up in the past, the carers are very good.”

Staff supported people with eating and drinking, offered choice and encouragement, and helped people maintain independence with daily activities where possible. One staff member told us, “I offer choices with food and drinks and respect their choices.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Although the provider had systems in place to monitor people’s care and treatment, these were not fully effective in ensuring outcomes were consistently positive. The lack of information in people’s care plans regarding their individual needs, such as catheter care and diabetes put people at risk of receiving poor outcomes.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Where people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions the correct procedures were not always followed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We found examples in people’s records where staff had recorded ‘don’t know’ relating to the person’s capacity. One person’s records stated they lacked capacity; the record went on to state a best interest decision was not required. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would ensure appropriate capacity assessments would be completed in line with the MCA.

Most of the people we spoke with told us staff sought their consent before providing care and support. One person told us, “They always ask consent before providing personal care.” A relative commented, “They are good at asking for consent.”

Staff understood the importance of consent and described asking people for permission before providing care. One staff member told us, “It is important to gain people’s consent. I do this by asking them if they want something.” Staff also described respecting people’s right to refuse care. However, some staff were unsure where to locate capacity assessments or MCA documentation.