Winscombe Care Home

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 64 (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. Care plans relating to insulin dependency, mobility and medicines were not consistently accurate or up to date, and therefore did not fully capture people’s physical, mental, emotional, or social needs, including those associated with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Care records lacked evidence people, or their relatives were regularly involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and support, limiting the ability to provide care that was truly centred around their needs.Activities were not always person-centred. We observed a member of staff attempting to engage people in the communal area by asking them to throw soft cushions into a hoop. Although 3 people took part in the activity, not everyone in the area was engaged and alternative activities were not suggested.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People received care and support which was co-ordinated with external professionals. External professionals were complimentary about the providers attitude to partnership working. One professional commented,” I have met with the management team and GPs regularly for the last few years. We have formulated appropriate treatment plans with the GP surgery to address escalating behavioural changes with good effect (incidences of 999 calls, mental health service intervention have dropped dramatically since training provided).”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There was limited evidence information was being provided in an accessible format for people. When Mental Capacity Assessments had been completed records did not show how information had been presented to people to ensure they were fully supported to enhance their understanding and participation in decisions. However, staff gave various examples where people were provided with information and professionals told us the service worked with them positively.

The provider had processes in place for regular meetings with people and we saw evidence of this in meeting minutes. A yearly survey was carried out with people, relatives and professionals. The records suggested people were listened to. The provider did have relevant concerns and compliments policies and procedures in place that staff and people could access. Complaints were dealt with in reasonable time and leadership were responsive and took concerns seriously. During a ‘residents meeting’ a number of people raised complaints about the timings of lunch and tea being too close together. New suggested times were provided and this was acted upon.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment when they needed it. People said they were supported to access services they needed to. This included support to plan hospital visits to ensure they were successful and information about advocacy services. The registered manager told us staff supported people where needed to access local services. Whilst people’s records did not consistently detail appropriate information, an external professional said, “Staff have demonstrated to me over the years, many times over, that they are able to efficiently and appropriately engage with people (with Huntington’s disease). This group of staff are completely flexible, patient focused, willing to learn, keen to seek help and training/education as needed and driven to provide a great standard of care for people with Huntington’s Disease”.

The registered manager told us they recognised people might face inequality and discrimination in services and were aware of how they could act as intermediaries. Where possible people were supported to access services, local communities and healthcare by staff. The provider shared details of advocacy organisations with people if they needed this type of support. Where appropriate, people’s relatives could access the care planning system and make sure people were getting the care they needed. An external professional told us they felt staff at Winscombe Care Home provided a good service which enhanced people’s lives and improved their wellbeing.

People were not always 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.End of life care plans were not person centred, were generic and contained basic information and in some cases, were not recorded in people’s care records. This meant people’s wishes at the end of their life might not be understood by staff.