Wurel House

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Staff worked in partnership with people to deliver their care. People and their relatives were involved in planning their care and treatment. One relative told us, “They are quite aware of [my relatives] needs they sit and talk to [them]. [They are] very polite.”

People were supported by a small and consistent staff team which meant people and staff knew each other well. People were supported by regular staff which improved and maintained continuity of care. One relative told us, “90% of the time it’s the same [staff member]. [My relative] is very happy.” Staff worked in partnership with other agencies to support people with their rehabilitation following on from a hospital stay.

The provider told us that people were provided with information verbally. However, information was not always also provided in writing. People would also benefit from more information being understood about their communication needs. For example, assessments noted if people could read, but not if they needed any adaptations such as large print or clear line spacing. We discussed this with the provider who took action immediately after the inspection and addressed the concern. Written information for people was put in place and people’s communication assessments were updated to include more details about what support they needed to access information.

There was a system in place to record complaints. However, there were no records of any recent complaints having been made to the service and people and their relatives told us they had not complained. There was an up-to-date complaints policy which included information on who to contact if the person was unhappy with the outcome of the complaint. People and their relatives told us they knew how to complain if they needed to do so. One person said, “If I was worried about anything I could easily raise a concern.” Another person said, “I am quite happy, if I have any complaint, they will put it right or tell me why they can’t.”

The provider worked alongside health care professionals to support people to leave hospital when they were ready to do so and improve equality in access. This aimed to reduce the number of people who were in hospital because they could not access the care and support, they needed, when they needed it. People told us staff listened to them and provided care in a way which worked for them, removing barriers to access. For example, staff knew how one person communicated ensuring the person was able to maintain a voice in their care.

The provider met with people or with their relative present if they so wished. This enabled people to discuss their care and support in an accessible way and ensure people’s care met their needs. People and their relatives were positive about the support they received from the provider. One relative told us, “[The provider] is very good, right from day one he has been helpful and considerate.”

At the time of the inspection no one was in receipt of end-of-life care and people had the support of their families to ensure their wishes and preferences were followed. However, immediately after we visited the service, the service completed an assessment for a new person and, information on their wishes and preferences were included such as if the person wanted to remain at home if their health became worse and if they had an advance treatment plan in place. Staff had completed training in supporting people at the end of their life.