Wayside Care Home

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 changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 50 (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. Care was not consistently person-centred. Incomplete care plans and inconsistent information meant care was not always tailored to individual needs. There were areas of people’s care and support plans which were blank or could not be located at the time it was needed. For example, consent to care, incorrect information regarding mobility aids, misleading dietary information and lack of detail regarding specific interventions like ‘wash’ meant people were not at the centre of their care choices. Risk assessments were predominantly generic across areas such as mobility, personal care, and nutrition. This demonstrated people did not receive a person-centred approach from the provider or management team when planning the delivery of their care and support.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Care was not always joined-up or consistent, particularly due to inaccuracies in records. For example, information regarding specialist eating and drinking assessments were missing and care plan sections including ‘current problems, psychiatric history, social worker involvement, funding and care details’ were inconsistently completed or missing.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information provided to staff and people was not always accurate or accessible, limiting safe and effective care delivery. For example, the information available to people on choices regarding what to eat and the alternatives was inappropriate and inaccurate. We asked a staff member about why there were menus on tables relating to choices which were not available to people and they did not know other than they were told to put them on the tables and they had not looked at them “in years.” The provider had failed to assess people’s individual communication needs and implement effective systems to provide them with the relevant and accurate information at the time they needed to make a decision or choice.

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. There was limited evidence feedback from people or families was consistently acted upon. For example, there were incomplete care plans, a lack of documented involvement regarding the decisions made about the care people received, poor review processes when circumstances and there were generic and inaccurate records. These indicated people did not have meaningful involvement in service development and improvement.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider and management team could not evidence they had considered and implemented effective practices to ensure people had equal access to services. For example, they failed to ensure assessment had been completed to confirm all areas of the home were assessable to those with a disability or mobility need including stairs with trip hazards. The provider failed to ensure everyone had access to information in a way which effectively engaged them in decisions about their care and support or the choices of daily living. The provider failed to evidence they had effective systems to identify potential barriers through effective feedback systems and did not evidence they understood difficulties for people or proactively removed potential barriers to ensure equal access to care.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. There was a lack of effective care planning for individual people which failed to consider or support equity in experience and outcomes. The lack of information and generic assessments meant people’s individual needs and considerations were not always understood by staff. There was a culture where staff failed to challenge inequalities and seek to find solutions to the barriers people faced. For example, the provider could not evidence they had considered or assessed the impact on individuals who could not safely move between different floors of the home. Meaning people were at the risk of social isolation and a differing experience of care based on circumstances out of their control.

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. Care records contained gaps in key areas, with future planning sections often left blank, meaning people’s wishes and preferences were not always recorded. While some examples of detailed end-of-life planning were seen, this was not consistent across the service. Care plans were not always structured in a way which clearly communicated future wishes, limiting staff understanding and the ability to support informed decision-making. As a result, people were not always supported to plan for their future in a timely or meaningful way.