Wisteria Care

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 good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received care that was personal to them. People’s care plans and assessments included personalised information relating to people’s life history, personal identity, religious preferences, hobbies and interests.

Staff described how they delivered person centred care. One staff member told us, “I know them [people] pretty well. I ask people, even if I know them, I still have to ask them, I don’t just assume.” Staff described knowing people well and asking them about their preferences and wishes.

The provider did not always deliver care in a way that ensured safe, effective continuity or good integration with other professionals. We identified concerns where care documentation, including risk assessments and reviews, had not been completed or shared in a timely way. This affected how well care was coordinated, particularly for people with complex needs such as diabetes, catheter care and skin integrity. We received some mixed feedback from professionals on how well the service worked with them.

Most people had consistent care staff who knew them well, which supported continuity and effective day to day care. Relatives told us they valued seeing the same staff throughout the day, which helped ensure support was delivered in a familiar and reassuring way.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s care plans were not always up to date or accurate.

People’s care plans included information relating to their preferred communication method.

People and relatives told us they knew how to contact the office and felt able to raise concerns. Weekly rotas were provided, and some relatives used digital systems to receive updates.

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.

Most people and relatives felt able to raise concerns and that management responded when issues were reported. One person gave us an example of when they raised a concern and action was taken. People were aware they could contact the managers to raise any concerns. Comments from people included, “Never had to make a complaint, I would contact the office, and they would help me with any problem, I am sure,” “My only complaint is around timings of visits; it does get sorted out” and “We’ve used the carers for 5 years and never made any complaints.” The provider had a complaints procedure in place, and we saw this was followed where complaints had been raised.

The provider used surveys and reviews to gather feedback and involved people in discussions about their care.

The provider made sure that people could access the care and support they needed when they needed it. The service supported people across a wide geographical area and worked to cluster visits to reduce travel time. People confirmed visits generally took place, and missed calls were rare. People’s communication wishes were respected, for example some people received information via an online app and others received emails, letters or phone calls.

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.

Staff and management advocated on behalf of people to ensure they had access to services they needed. The registered manager gave examples of when they had liaised with other professionals to support people in their home environment. For example, occupational therapists where people needed equipment in their homes.

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. People and their relatives were aware of and had access to their care plans and they told us they were involved in reviews. One person told us, “My care plan is in a folder, staff record on their phones these days, they are always ready to discuss my care and make any changes.” We received some mixed feedback from professionals. One professional told us, “Communication is consistently responsive and cooperative, and they engage well in reviews and discharge planning, providing information promptly when required.” Another professional commented, “The quality of documentation is variable.” Information relating to people’s end of life wishes were recorded in care plans.