Wasdale Court

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

This means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This key question was last rated good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Peoples’ care plans were detailed and person-centred; they provided key information about the person including their life history, likes and dislikes and those who were important to them. People’s relatives confirmed the service did include them in care planning discussions with one person describing how they were beginning to work collaboratively and felt staff were honest. When a person’s needs changed, the service highlighted this to the relevant agencies and requested updates on referrals.

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.

Staff worked collaboratively with people’s relatives, some of whom provided a high level of support. We observed people access the community to go to the shops, went out with family and on holidays. The registered manager was considering how to develop a sense of community within the service. The service had worked closely with commissioners to make improvements within the service.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were assessed. Information was also available in an accessible format to aid communication with people about complex subjects. Staff had recently undertaken Makaton training and found this beneficial.

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 were limited routes in which people could share their feedback about the service to support its development. For example, staff meetings were arranged but attendance was limited. In 2024, surveys were sent to professionals, people who use the service and relatives. There was a limited response and alternative ways of gaining feedback had not been considered.

The registered manager was the main point of contact for feedback and to discuss any concerns. They worked hard to respond to concerns or complaints. The provider had a complaints policy, and complaints received had been responded to in accordance with this. Some person-centred reviews had taken place with the remaining ones scheduled. These would also provide an opportunity for people to share their feedback.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The registered manager made referrals to the relevant agencies and sought their input and understood how to access specialist health support people might need. The service was accessible and equipment to promote independence was used. People were able to contact the service, but some people fed back that it was difficult to speak to people on evenings and weekends. On-call arrangements were in place to support people in the event an emergency. People who used the service knew they could come to the office and to speak to the registered manager about any concerns they had.

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. For example, the provider had not ensured people were always asked about their views of their care and their feedback on what was working for them and what wasn’t.

However, staff had completed training in equality and diversity to ensure they were equipped with how to tackle issues of inequality. The provider had the relevant policies and procedures in place. The registered manager helped to ensure peoples’ social and healthcare needs were considered and met.

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. People's end of life wishes were not explored and recorded. This was an area we would expect providers to approach with people, their families and/or representatives to develop a plan. Some people and their families may not want to discuss this, but there were no records to show these topics had been approached. The provider confirmed they were aware of this and would address it.