WEF Care Also known as Chesterfield Respectful Care

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

The service was effective people's care and support achieved good outcomes and promoted good quality of life.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives felt involved in completing their needs assessments and felt confident they needs had been appropriately documented and understood by staff. People confirmed their needs were regularly reviewed.

People had comprehensive assessments that considered their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs, to enable them to receive the right care and treatment. People assessments were regularly reviewed and updated. They included information about how people like to communicate, for example when someone was hard of hearing this was clearly defined in their assessment.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People were happy about the way staff supported them with additional referrals and how information about their care was shared between the agencies.

Staff said they had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. When people’s need changed staff referred them to other agencies and health care professionals. Leaders told us about examples how staff worked with external agencies to support people, for example how staff worked with district nurses to support a person who lives with diabetes.

We received a positive feedback from the Local Authority about the way the provider worked with them.

Provider had processes in place to ensure prompt referrals were taking place when needed. We saw examples of referrals being made to other agencies, for example referrals to occupational therapy when people’s mobility declined and supporting people to get additional equipment, such as a commode.

People said they felt supported to manage their heath and well-being and staff helped them to remain as independent as possible.

Staff told us that they encouraged people's independence during personal care calls by supporting them with doing as much for themselves as possible. People told us staff understood their needs and knew their preferences.

Provider has systems in place to ensure that people were supported to prevent deterioration. This was achieved by regularly monitoring people's health and wellbeing and taking prompt actions when people became unwell. Referral pathways were in place to ensure support for people could be request when needed, for example from the GP.

People were happy with how the staff monitored their care and treatment. People told us staff asked them about their skills, strengths and goals and these were recorded in people's care plans.

Staff monitored people's care and recorded it in the care plans and daily records. Leaders told us they were in the process of making improvements to people's care plan to ensure they were more personalised and consistent at all the times.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure that people's care was continuously monitored and reviewed. People's goals were recorded in their care plans. There were audits in place to ensure that the people were achieving their desired outcomes.

People told us staff consistently asked them for consent before doing anything. One person said, "[Staff are] excellent at this [asking for consent] and always introduce themselves when they enter the bungalow and explain everything they are doing". People felt they views and wishes were always considered by staff. Relatives of people who lacked the capacity to make decisions confirmed they were involved in planning, managing and reviewing their care and treatment.

Staff told us they completed training and understood the importance of obtaining consent before they deliver care. Leaders told us there was an advocacy policy in place and people who wished or required to access advocacy services could get referred to organisations such as the Age UK.

The provider had systems and practices to ensure that people understood the care and treatment being offered. This allowed people to make informed decisions about their care. Information about care was given to people in the format they could understand. People's consent to specific decision's was clearly documented. People's capacity to make decisions was taken into account and assessed when needed. When people lacked the capacity to make certain decisions staff acted in their best interest. Decisions about DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) were recorded for each individual.