Waverley 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

We assessed all quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of concern. People were not supported in a person-centred way. There was limited access to activities inside and outside of the home. The provider did not actively seek out and listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. People’s care plans were not always accurate and up to date so did not fully reflect peoples physical, mental, emotional and social needs. People’s care, treatment and support did not promote equality, remove barriers or delays and protect their rights, including those people living with dementia or other protected characteristics. People did not feel empowered. There was a lack of continuity to ensure people received the care they needed and it was not clear people were involved fully with decisions about their care or that affected the home and the way they were supported. People did not receive equal access to care.

This service scored 25 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

A relative told us they had not been involved in planning the person's care so that their individual needs were assessed, planned for or met in a personalised way. There was limited feedback from people regarding person centred care.

Leaders and staff did not demonstrate an understanding of working in a person-centred way. The manager acknowledged care plans did not provide the level of information to guide staff on people’s preferences and wishes.

Our observations evidenced people were not always provided with person centred care to meet their individual needs. We saw the environment did not support people’s individual’s needs. People’s rooms, in some instances, were inadequate for as fixtures, fittings and furniture were of poor quality. For example, some bedrooms had no lamp shades and ill-fitting curtains, and some bedrooms had broken furniture and unsuitable beds.

There was limited feedback from people regarding person care provision, integration and continuity however, our observations and review of people’s care was not joined up, flexible or supportive of their choices.

There was limited feedback from staff about care provision, integration and continuity. The manager lacked overall knowledge about people’s diverse health and care needs.

We received no feedback from partners in this area.

There was a lack of systems in place to ensure the most up to date information about peoples need was communicated to staff daily. Systems and processes were not effective in ensuring accurate information was available in adapted formats for people who needed it.

There was limited feedback from people regarding providing information. However, our observations identified people did not have any information available to them, in a format that was tailored to their individual communication needs. For example, easy read or large print.

There was limited feedback from staff about providing information.

People did not have copies of their care plans and there was no evidence of any care or support information being shared with them. It was not evident what information had been shared with people or families as part of reviews.

There was limited feedback from people about listening to and involving people. However, our review of records lacked evidence of their involvement in the care planning and review processes and there were no records of any resident or relatives' meetings.

Staff did not provide information to evidence how they sought feedback from people. However, our observations showed a lack of action to obtain peoples feedback on day-to-day events in terms of food and activities.

There was no evidence of meetings held for people or their family members. It was not clear the provider had been open and honest with people and relatives regarding the improvements that were needed to the service.

There was limited feedback from people about equity in access. However, our observations showed people had limited access to parts of the home including the dining room and garden.

Monitoring of people’s health was not robust, and staff did not know people well. One person required access to chiropody services, a staff member was not aware how often the service was required or when the person was last seen.

We received no feedback from partners in this area.

There was no evidence the provider used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek to improve access. People were more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing their care.

There was limited feedback from people about equity in experiences and outcomes. However, our review of records evidenced a lack of clear planning of people’s care and expected outcomes.

Leaders did not ensure people were placed at the centre of everything they did. They did not work together with people to support them to achieve good outcomes.

The manager and staff did not seek the views about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience and outcomes.

There was limited feedback from people about planning for the future. However, our review of records showed people were not given the opportunity to plan for their future.

Leaders did not provide people with an opportunity to discuss or plan their end of life wishes.

Systems and processes were ineffective in ensuring people were supported to make informed decisions and plan for the future.