280-282 Wells Road

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 service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained as good. This meant people received responsive, personalised care and support that met their needs and reflected their preferences. However, staff were not always available to support people with activities of their choice. People and those close to them were supported to understand and raise concerns or make complaints when this was needed.

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 service did not always make sure people had access to meaningful activities, stimulating conversation and access to their local area, when they chose. For example, staff did not always have the availability to spend quality time engaging with individual people. People and their relatives told us staffing levels had impacted how frequently people went out. A person told us, “We go out for meals, I don't go out often, and we often go out as a group”.

The service 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 and their relatives told us they were involved in their care. Staff gave us examples of how they included people in reviewing their care plans.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, information was made available in easy ready formats, that people were supported to access and understand.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The manager operated a ‘open door policy’. House meetings were held regularly to gather feedback from people who lived at the service.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, people felt they receive the type of support they need, and when they want it.

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. Staff received training in equity, diversity and human rights. The provider had a policy in place which staff understood and followed.

People were 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. Although end of life care was not required at this time. People and relatives had been involved in discussions for future planning.