Whispers Care Solutions Limited

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 remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The registered manager had a very clear understanding of the service’s scope and the range of needs it could meet. They made careful assessments of people’s needs prior to agreeing care packages. Where additional training was required, for example in the management of a medical condition or the use of equipment, the provider sourced this training and adjusted timescales for the commencement of care. This ensured everything was put in place when care started and staff had the right training and skills to meet people’s needs.

People told us they were involved in their initial assessments, and care plans reflected the outcomes agreed with them. The provider reviewed external professionals’ assessments to help inform care planning. There were systems in place to regularly review people’s needs, with care being adjusted as appropriate. This helped ensure people’s current needs were being met.

Senior staff carried out initial visits to understand each person’s needs and confirm the suitability of planned care. They worked alongside staff during induction to ensure consistent practice across the team.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider developed policies and procedures in line with recognised best‑practice guidance. Senior leaders met regularly to review and evaluate policies and procedures. This helped to ensure guidance for staff was up to date and effective. Care plans were person‑centred, current, and included clear approaches for behavioural support and the management of people’s health and medical conditions.

Staff had access to specialist training relevant to people’s needs, including dementia, end‑of‑life care, epilepsy, and tracheostomy care. The provider confirmed all staff would have completed the training on learning disability and autism by March 2026, in line with requirements. Nursing staff worked closely with the staff to assess competence and build their confidence. Staff told us nurses completed a series of observations before signing them off to perform clinical tasks independently. One staff member told us, “The nurses will come out in first meeting with the family and person. The second time they will come out and shadow alongside me. The third time they will do an observation of working practice.”

Risk assessments reflected established evidence‑based tools and were reviewed when needs changed. Staff understood how to apply professional guidance and worked effectively with professionals to deliver coordinated care. There were systems to monitor practice included audits, competency checks and multidisciplinary review meetings, which supported quality assurance and continuous learning.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

The provider clearly defined and documented the roles of all external stakeholders involved in people’s care. This ensured people received timely and appropriate professional input. We saw evidence of positive relationships with health professionals and commissioners, including joint reviews of care needs and coordinated transition planning. Professionals told us how the provider promoted effective partnership working and information‑sharing agreements. Professionals felt leaders and staff were professional, responsive and proactive. This reflected a consistent, joined‑up approach that promoted positive outcomes.

The provider had effective systems to communicate key information across staff teams. Daily huddles, clinical meetings and governance meetings helped to ensure essential updates were handed over between staff. There was a clear allocation of senior staff tasks and priorities. Department heads and senior leaders met weekly to review emerging issues, helping maintain a shared understanding of organisational needs.

The electronic care planning system supported timely and effective communication. When care plans were updated, senior staff uploaded the latest information to the electronic care‑planning system, ensuring staff could always access up‑to‑date guidance. When people’s needs changed significantly, senior staff visited to assess the situation and guide staff. This ensured prompt action and appropriate adjustments to care were implemented.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People’s healthcare needs were documented in their care plans, including how their conditions affected daily life and the support staff needed to provide. Staff roles were clearly defined for people with complex healthcare needs, enabling the service to measure staff input and impact. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s health needs. They encouraged people to engage with healthcare professionals and implemented professional recommendations around monitoring and support. When people could not verbally communicate changes in their health, staff monitored for signs of distress, discomfort or behavioural changes and sought additional support when required.

People and relatives told us they were involved in discussions about maintaining health and wellbeing. We saw evidence of good‑quality care leading to positive health outcomes. Staff supported improvements in health by helping people address self‑neglect, instability in previous placements, non‑compliance with prescribed medicines and reluctance to engage with healthcare services. Staff adapted their approach to each person’s needs to promote the best possible outcomes.

Training records showed staff received specialist training relevant to the needs of the people they supported, including training on specific medical conditions and the use of specialised equipment. The provider had internal training resources available, enabling them to respond quickly to changes in people’s needs and new referrals.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent.

People and relatives told us the care they received promoted positive outcomes for their health and wellbeing. They said staff worked with them to identify what they wanted to achieve and how best to achieve it.

Staff were competent in monitoring changes in people’s needs and escalating concerns when additional support was required. For example, staff accurately recorded information on skin integrity, hydration and nutrition, and alerted senior staff if people presented differently from their baseline. Professionals reported that staff worked effectively in partnership to monitor people’s health and medical conditions. They said staff were proactive in identifying and reporting concerns, ensuring people received timely professional input. This included recognising subtle behavioural changes that could indicate underlying issues for people with complex needs.

Key care tasks were identified during assessment and recorded on the electronic care‑planning system. Senior staff monitored this system to identify missed or incomplete tasks and ensured issues were followed up. This included sending senior or supernumerary staff to complete outstanding tasks or investigating the cause of any discrepancies. Nursing staff had effective oversight of clinical tasks and regularly worked alongside staff to ensure they understood what they were monitoring and why.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider had effective systems to obtain people’s consent to care. People told us they received copies of their care plans to review and confirm their consent.

The provider had delivered additional training to all staff on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff demonstrated a good understanding of applying MCA principles in daily practice. They understood consent requirements for adults and children, and recognised people’s right to make unwise decisions when they had capacity. Staff told us they encouraged people to consider risks, but respected decisions where capacity was established. They also reported concerns to senior staff when unwise decisions posed safety risks. One staff member told us, “I work in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. I always assume capacity unless told otherwise. I encourage independence and only provide support where needed, making sure care is delivered in the least restrictive way while still keeping people safe.”

Senior staff understood the legal frameworks around consent and applied them throughout assessment, care planning and review. When people lacked capacity to make decisions about their care, processes ensured decisions were made in their best interests. The provider had recently reviewed all care plans to ensure they reflected requirements of the MCA. They ensured that processes around obtaining valid consent to care were documented. This helped ensure people’s rights were upheld and care was person centred.