Walsingham Support - 1 Ashley Close

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 questiongood.At thisassessmentthe rating has changed torequires improvement.This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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.

Some people attended a day centre during the week. However,for those not attending the daycentre, there was limited engagement in alternative activities.

The home had a sensory room, which contained boxes of toys. It was evident that some of these games remained unopened,indicating they were not being routinely accessed or used.

We reviewed people’s activity timetable and watching television was recorded as an activity yet there were activities that people could be supported to do within the sensory room. We visited the home on a Sunday afternoon, and people were watching television. An agency staff member confirmed that there were no organised activities available during the weekend period.

The registered manager was trying to arrange more activities,and we saw some examples of planned activities been scheduled. However,there needed to be more in-house activities to ensure people did not spend their day sitting in front of a television.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. This meant care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. It was intended for one person to attend a local church, and the registered manager confirmed support for this arrangement. However, upon reviewing the daily logs for June and September, there was no documentation indicating that the person attended church. The registered manager acknowledged that insufficient staffing resources prevented this person from being taken to church.The registered manager was working with the local authority to organise reviews of care for people. This was confirmed by relatives.

The registered manager demonstrated a proactive approach to maintaining a full complement of permanent staff. They recognised the need to ensure continuity of care and foster familiarity between staff and people, while reducing reliance on agency staff

The provider did not supplyappropriate,accurateand up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s care plans were not available in different formats, limiting people’s ability to understand their care plan. There was no evidence of information been accessible in different formats:for example, menus, care plans, risk assessments, medical information were only available in written formats.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care,treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. Residents were not encouraged to express their opinions. Relatives reported minor concerns, which were addressed appropriately, and expressed that the home was making efforts to implement improvements. Additionally, relatives confirmed that the new registered manager was scheduling calls with all family members. They told us this was positive as communication had been a problem with the previous manager.

The provider did not ensure people could access the care,support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff were not consistently recording changes in people’s behaviours which meant it was not always possible to evidence a need for increase care and support. As a result, some people did not have the same access to attend events which they could have benefit from. We saw evidence people were referred to appropriate health professionals when required. Staff worked closely with the GP to support people with their health care needs.

The provider was not able to demonstrate how they promoted equality in people’s care or empowered them to lead a full life. People were not always regularly supported to go out to places that were important to them or engage in meaningful activities in line with the principles of the Right support, right care, right culture guidance. The provider was not able to evidence how they had reviewed people’s daily care to understand and improve people’s quality of life.

People were 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 the assessment no one was end of life. The registered manager said they were working with families to ensure staff understood how to support people who were at the end of their lives.