Whitwood House

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. The last time this key question was assessed it was rated good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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.

We observed a number of examples of how people were supported in an individualised way by staff who knew them well. The registered manager and staff consistently reflected an approach of putting the person first. People’s bedrooms were personalised, and the general environment was homely. There was a relaxed atmosphere, reflective of a family home, where relationships between staff and people were positive. Improvements were however needed with regards to consistently reviewing records to ensure people’s changing needs were always identified.

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.

Systems and processes were in place to support continuity of care and to ensure people had access to relevant health professionals when they needed them. Staff understood people’s needs and supported them in attending appointments when required.

The provider supplied information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff knew people well and communicated with people in a way which was suited to their needs. Information was available in adapted formats. We observed tools being used to aid communication. For example, picture cards, easy read information and electronic tablet devices.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The registered manager told us they had not received any complaints. However, relatives did not always feel concerns were listened to and acted upon. One relative told us, “I lack confidence in getting any feedback from concerns. They tell us they’ve done something but don’t tell us the outcome.” The registered manager told us about attempts being made to engage families in family forums going forward. The provider obtained some feedback from people via a survey. However, it was not always clear how actions were monitored to ensure improvements were made following feedback.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were supported to experience equality in the care they received. Staff understood the needs of people with a learning disability and/or autism and worked hard to ensure that the barriers they faced were removed. They ensured people they supported had access to health services when required.

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.

People were given opportunities and choices to positively impact their experiences. Staff worked hard to ensure people they supported had the same opportunities as people who did not live in a care service. For example, accessing health care, engaging in the community, participating in social activities and going on holiday. There was an overall focus on improving people’s quality of life.

People were mostly supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff supported people in making choices and decisions regarding their care and their future. Goals were included in most care plans, although, 1 person had goals missing from some of their care plans and where goals had been identified they were not always reviewed with the stipulated time frame. Nobody at the service was receiving end of life care at the time of the assessment.