Sister Winifred Laver Promoting Independence Centre

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 requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 53 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care was not always planned and delivered in a person-centred way. People’s care plans were very brief and lack personalised information about their preferences and the specific support they needed from staff.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Support and therapy staff consistently told us teamwork and communication needed to improve to ensure people received continuity of care. The provider had received similar feedback in their most recent staff survey, where 55% of the staff who had responded rated communication as poor. The provider told us they had taken action to improve this although this was not always evident.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had communication plans, however these often contained brief information about the support people needed with communication. They also lacked detailed information to guide staff about the most effective strategies to empower people to make choices and decisions.

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. The provider had policies and procedures for dealing with complaints. However, there hadn’t been any formal complaints made about the service. The provider held regular ‘Your voice counts’ meetings with people, however it was not always apparent people’s suggestions had been considered and implemented where appropriate.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Support and therapy staff told us there needed to be more involvement from therapy, rehabilitation and physiotherapy. People’s care plans did not clearly detail how other services were linked to provide holistic care.

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. The provider’s quality assurance systems needed to be improved to ensure clear goals and outcomes were identified and monitored to ensure people received good outcomes.

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. The provider offered people the opportunity to discuss their future care plans, including end of life care. However, the aim of the service was short term rehabilitation to enable people to return home.