Wendleberrie 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.

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.

The provider was committed to providing person-centred care, and this was reflected in the interactions we observed between staff, people and their relatives during the assessment. Staff provided care in a way that reflected people's individual needs, preferences and wishes. We observed that staff knew people well and adapted their approach based on people's mood, comfort and wellbeing.

A relative told us, "The care they give to (relative) is very personal, they're really kind and you can have a laugh with them too”

Some people had personalised their bedrooms to reflect their preferences, interests and personalities, helping to create a familiar and comfortable environment.Care plans were reviewed regularly and updated when people's needs changed. However, although the information was up to date, care plans were not always organised in a way that made key information easy to find. The provider agreed to improve the layout of care plans and assured us this work had started by the end of the assessment.

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.

The provider had a stable staff team with low staff turnover, which helped people receive care from staff who knew them well. Where agency staff were used, the provider aimed to use regular staff to promote continuity of care.

Information about people's needs was shared effectively within the staff team. Care plans were updated when people's needs changed or following significant events.The service worked well with healthcare professionals, including GPs, district nurses and other services when needed. Professional advice was followed and reflected in people's care to support safe and consistent care.

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

The provider shared information with people and their relatives in a variety of ways, including a service user guide and the home's social media page.Information could be provided in alternative formats, including easy-read and translated documents where needed. Staff were also able to support people whose first language was not English.A relative told us, "Staff ring me if they want to tell me what's happening."

Clear signage throughout the home helped people find their way around independently.People were supported to keep in touch with their family and friends, including by telephone and video calls where needed.

The provider did not always involve people and their relatives in planning and reviewing their care. Although there were systems to gather feedback, people were not always involved in decisions about their care and support.

The provider had systems in place to gather feedback from people, relatives and staff. Resident and staff meetings were held regularly, and the provider also used surveys and an anonymous feedback box to encourage feedback. The provider told us no formal complaints had been received during the previous 12 months. One person told us, "Have not made a complaint, but would have no issues doing so."

The manager told us people and their relatives were involved in care planning and care reviews where appropriate. However, feedback from some people and relatives showed this was not always the case. Some relatives told us they had not been invited to care reviews or were unaware of care planning arrangements. Some people also told us they had not been involved in care planning or did not know whether they had a care plan.

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

We did not identify any concerns about people's ability to access the service or the support they needed. The environment was accessible, and equipment was available to meet people's individual needs.People had access to healthcare services, including GPs, dentists, opticians, mental health services and other specialist professionals when needed. Records showed referrals were made appropriately, and people were supported to attend appointments.

The provider recognised the importance of meeting people's cultural, religious and personal preferences. People were supported to attend places of worship or take part in religious activities if they wished.

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.

The provider gathered feedback from people, relatives and staff through meetings, surveys and supervision. This helped them understand people's experiences and identify areas for improvement.People told us they were treated fairly, with dignity and respect, and did not feel discriminated against.

The provider did not always ensure people and their relatives were fully involved in planning for future care. Although plans were in place, communication about future care planning and end-of-life wishes was not always clear.

We found that advance care plans were not always personalised. They mainly recorded funeral arrangements, such as whether a person wished to be buried or cremated, but did not always include wider information about people's preferences and wishes for their future care. Some relatives also told us they were not always involved in discussions about future care planning and were unclear about people's wishes and RESPECT documentation. People's resuscitation decisions and RESPECT forms, where completed, were recorded and easily accessible to staff.