WR Care Services

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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. People’s daily records did not always contain appropriate or dignified language when evidencing care calls. For example, misgendering people, and care records incorrectly entered under another person’s notes. The provider had discussed errors in daily notes in team meetings. However, this was ineffective as records evidenced no change in practise. This meant people were at risk of being treated in an undignified way, and incorrect information being shared in the event of an emergency.

Care plans contained generic information about people’s health conditions such as hypertension and dementia, but they did not contain personalised details about how their conditions impacted people. This meant that staff did not have documentation to support them to understand the differences in how people’s conditions presented.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about whether they had been asked for their preference over their carer’s gender. This meant people were not always supported in a fully individualised way, and there was a possibility their care did not consistently reflect their preferences. We shared this with the provider, who told us they would introduce further measures to improve.

However, care records reflected preferences around meals and bedtime routines. Care records clearly indicated relative’s views and where they were responsible for elements of people’s care. This meant that people’s comfort and wellbeing were supported and ensured that people’s relatives needs were taken into account.

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.

A stable core team of long-serving staff delivered care. The service did not use any agency staff and ensured that familiar carers covered annual leave and emergencies. People told us they were given care by a consistent team of carers and knew them well, although did not always agree they had been asked about their preferences in the gender of their carers.

Staff were collaborative, flexible, and ensured care across services was centred around the person. Care plans reflected support given from relatives and health professionals, for example, community nursing service and occupational therapy.

Partners told us they felt the service worked cohesively with them to meet people’s care needs. They said, “WR Services are familiar with referral processes when a person’s needs change. They appropriately contact [our service], the safeguarding team, for [specialist] risk assessments, care reviews, or equipment reassessments. A recent example includes advising them to contact [community health service] for provision of [equipment] to reduce the risk of pressure sores, which they promptly did following [service] guidance.”

This meant people received consistent, well‑coordinated care from staff who knew them well. Their changing needs were identified promptly and were able to access the right professional support and equipment.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service had a data protection policy in place, and personal data was locked away appropriately or stored in an electronic protected care planning system. People’s communication needs were noted in their care plans. The service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard by providing information such as care plans in large or easy read format if required. People were matched with carers who could communicate in their preferred language, helping to ensure they felt understood and able to express their needs comfortably. This meant that people were able to make choices with reasonable adjustments in place.

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 and told them what had changed as a result. People told us they felt listened to and staff knew them well.

There were three formal complaints raised in the last year. Complaints had been investigated and resolved with people and their family members and appropriate action taken.

The provider asked for feedback in regular monitoring calls. People were able to phone the service and share their thoughts. This feedback was received honestly and openly by the provider. Records evidenced meetings were held with people, their families, and relevant professionals to resolve issues when they occurred. This meant people were involved in the management of their care.

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

An on‑call system enabled people, professionals and staff to contact management at any time for advice, guidance or to raise concerns, helping to ensure people received their planned care and that urgent issues were responded to promptly. People and their relatives told us they could phone the office and receive immediate help.

Professionals told us care was delivered in line with people’s assessed needs and that the service acted quickly when changes were required, including increasing care calls while waiting for updated provision to be authorised. This meant people experienced timely, reliable and well‑coordinated care, with support that adapted to their changing needs and gave them confidence that help was always available.

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.

Records showed staff provided culturally appropriate care, such as supporting a person’s religious beliefs and dietary needs. People and their relatives did not raise any concerns about being treated less favourably and we did not see any evidence people were experiencing inconsistent care. People and their relatives gave mixed feedback about whether they had been asked if they would prefer male or female carers, however, some care plans did specifically state the preferred gender of carers.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, including end‑of‑life care. There were no ResPECT forms in place, which is considered best practise. ResPECT forms are where people’s wishes regarding emergency medical care are recorded when they are unable to express them in the future. The absence of ResPECT forms meant people’s wishes about emergency treatment were not formally recorded, creating a risk that care might not reflect their preferences if they became unable to communicate. Some people’s care records indicated that their families were aware of their wishes.

Future plans were not always effective and contained basic information, however, the provider told us that where people had chosen to have DNACPR forms, these were contained in the home environment and in care records. DNACPR forms are where people can express their wishes about being resuscitated.