Winside Care

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were receiving person centred care. The provider spent time with people checking what was important to them. If people could not have this type of conversation, the provider spoke with their loved ones to gain this information. People had planned care which was directed by them or those important to them. For some people, the staff and the provider were supporting them on their journey to independence, staff talked confidently about how they were doing this and how staff were working together to help this person achieve their goals.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People told us, we saw care plans and daily care notes, showing care visits/schedules were worked around what people said they wanted. One person’s relative also told us how the care was arranged to enable their loved one to follow their interests in life.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information.

People received information packs when they started with the service and they knew how to make a complaint. People said they had read their care plans and confirmed the provider had made the amendments they wanted them to.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas about the care and support they received.

The provider did respond when people raised issues, which the provider kept a log of. They also reviewed the risks which people faced. However, the provider was not initiating holistic person centred reviews of the care people experienced to capture people’s views about the care and share ideas to improve the care. They had not made plans to do this. Following our feedback, they provided us with assurance that they would address this.

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

The provider had listened to people and shaped their care provision around these views and their direction. People said they were confident if required the staff and provider would advocate for them to do this.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this.

The provider talked to us about how the people they supported could experience inequality, especially if they have a physical or learning disability. People or their relatives had also directed the provider what they wanted from their care package to ensure peoples cultural needs were met. The provider had ensured this was happening in practice.

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.

No one was at the end of their lives. However, the provider had not considered this part of people’s lives. They were unable to show they had tried to approach this subject with people and revisit it after people had become more familiar with them and the staff. The provider said they would start these conversations and make plans to do this if this is what people wanted.