Weston Favell Houses

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 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.

The interactions we observed between staff across all roles of the provider with people were person-centred and reflected the culture staff, people and relatives told us existed in the service.

Staff had good knowledge of people and the support they delivered was tailored to people’s needs. People and relatives told us they were involved in their care planning, and they reflected their needs. A relative said, “Yes, I have seen [relative’s] care plan and been asked to comment.”

Relatives told us they were kept informed of changes to people’s needs and they were involved in decisions about their loved one’s care and support. A relative said, “Whenever there is a meeting around care planning, I am invited and I go, the last one was about six months ago”.

We found people’s care records showed they had been involved in the creation of care plans. However, we found there was not always the documented evidence of how people or their relatives had been involved in reviews.

Although some more work was needed to evidence how people were involved in their reviews this did not distract the provider, making sure people were at the centre of their care, or that they responded to any changes to people’s needs.

The provider 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 from a group of the same care staff which enabled continuity. Staff had specific or enhanced training with regards to the people they supported and had a good understanding of people’s health needs.

Although some agency staff were being used by the provider, the manager told us they tried to use the same agency workers, so it felt like they were a member of the team.

The provider had their own multi-disciplinary team (MDT) made up of staff from a range of disciplines, including nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and psychology who were actively visible in the service and knew people well. Although the GP was independent of the care provider, they were integrated into the MDT. The relationship between the GP and MDT provided people with continuity.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider had a service user guide for new people joining the service and this was available in other accessible formats and where a person’s first language was not English, we observed staff worked well with an interpreter to meet their communication needs.

We observed easy-read information in the service during our assessment and there were regular newsletters for people accessing the service to keep them informed about news and events.

Staff received Data Protection training, and we observed staff were mindful about discussing people’s needs in communal areas.

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.

The provider had a complaints policy and an information leaflet for people and relatives about how to raise concerns or complaints with signposting to external agencies. For example, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Relatives told us they were aware of the complaints policy and how to raise a concern. A relative told us, “I have never had to complain but if there was an issue I would feel comfortable about talking it over with [registered manager].”

There was a log of complaints and compliments. We discussed the need to link lessons learnt from individual stakeholder feedback to the log with the provider who told us this change would take place as their dashboard was developed.

The provider listened and involved people through their annual satisfaction survey. The survey was completed in September 2025, this included an analysis of the findings and where there were areas found for improvement, actions had been identified.

The annual relative satisfaction survey was in progress at the time of the assessment. The provider was in the process of launching a family and friends support group to enable relatives to connect and receive information and support from the provider’s team.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider had a service user guide that was available to people accessing the service and we found there was information available in relation to places of worship to meet people’s religious needs.

Where a person’s first language was not English, staff told us they knew some phrases in a different language, and they would use google translate if required. However, although the registered manager assured us a communication care plan was in place, we found this was not in the person’s care plan during our assessment. Therefore, we could not be assured of the formal translation arrangements when the interpreter was not at the service.

The provider had an on-call policy in place so a nurse or member of the management team could always be contacted. There was a business continuity plan in place, and the performance director told us about lessons learnt after the plan was enacted at another service operated by the provider during an emergency.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes.

Staff demonstrated they understood the potential discrimination and inequality people who use the service may face and were able to tell us how human rights legislation impacted on their work.

People and their relatives told us they felt staff were genuinely interested in their views and take these into account when developing the service. A relative told us, “As [relatives] advocate, I am listened to.”

People told us they had good outcomes and experiences of being supported by the service. However, we found records did not adequately reflect people’s achievements as part of the provider’s review process and work was required to ensure people’s experience was captured.

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.

At the time of our assessment no one was receiving end of life care. Staff were aware of people’s resuscitation status, and the provider shared with us the advance planning information and resources they had made available to people, relatives and staff.

The provider told us that further development was needed in relation to developing people’s plans for the future and they had established an end-of-life working group to lead on this. We saw evidence that the working group had planned workshops to deliver an update to staff in relation to changes arising from the project.