Westmead

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

People received person-centred care. At our last assessment we found concerns about people not always receiving person centred care, in particular when accessing the community. During this assessment, we found improvements in this area. Care was tailored to people’s needs and care plans provided staff with suitable guidance. The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, relatives and healthcare professionals how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff were appropriately trained and demonstrated good understanding around how to adapt their approach to meet the needs of people using the service. We observed staff supporting people in a person-centred way.

We received mixed feedback from relatives in relation to activities. A relative told us, “This is where it is difficult, because you've got to have [person’s] centred care, because you can't overstimulate [person]. They challenge [person] as much as they can without pushing [them] too far. Staff took [person] out in the car last week, that's taken four months, of [person] walking to the car with one or two members of staff.” Another relative said, “Not aware of any activity plan and [person] does not have enough to do.” In our review of people’s care records and observations during our 3 site visits, we found evidence of significant improvement in people having access and being encouraged to access the community and gain independence.

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 required care provisions to meet their needs and measures were in place to promote continuity of care. Feedback from healthcare professionals highlighted the service worked effectively at supporting and promoting joined up care.

People’s care records showed how people’s care was planned and delivered with an holistic approach to people’s needs. This included, for example, how people were supported if they required hospital admission.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, one person communicated using Makaton. We saw flash cards with Makaton signs in their home to guide staff on how to communicate. The provider had also made a video of the person signing so staff could watch this to ensure they were communicating effectively with the person.

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. Managers told us they listened to people and ensured they were involved in their care and treatment. They took all feedback, complaints and compliments seriously and investigated. We reviewed an adapted feedback form the provider had developed with speech and language therapists but had not been implemented yet, to gather feedback from people.

At the last assessment, we found concerns about how the provider was managing complaints; we found improvements at this assessment. Complaints were managed in line with the provider's complaints policy. We received mixed feedback from relatives, although most relatives told us they were confident their concerns and complaints would be listened and acted upon. Their comments included, “Yes, I think [name of registered manager] responded to the most recent complaints, I raised them by phone and they responded by e-mail. I am happy to phone and I feel like they are a bit more responsive, than their previous counterparts” ; “We were able to deal with it [complaint made] with the management and that worked out” and “All dealt with.”

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

People's care records indicated they had access to care, support and referrals were made for treatment when they needed it. A healthcare professionals told us, ”When I initially contacted the service I was directed to the appropriate person straight away and a meeting arranged. When I arrived, staff were expecting my visit and able to show me where the meeting would take place. Responses to my emails are always timely.”

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 which ensure best outcomes for people. A care professional commented, “The positive aspect of the service I have observed is a focused person centred approach to care with individuals; as well as evaluation and analysis of positive behaviour support plans, which inform accurate information to plan with individuals and professionals with regards to their care.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including end of life care. Information was available about people's religion and cultural preferences if this support was required. Relatives told us, “Yes, we've got an end-of-life care plan in place, two to three years ago now, it has all been discussed, and all in place” ; “Not sure, I don't think so, but I'm not sure on that one” and “They have, it has only been brought up recently.”