WEF Care

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

The service met people's needs through good organisation and delivery.

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 told us they were regularly involved in planning their care and treatment and felt it was centred around their needs.

Staff told us people's care plans gave them sufficient information about people's physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act to ensure people received support in a way they liked.

People told us the support they received from staff was well co-ordinated with other services they received. For example, a person who lived with diabetes told us WEF care staff and and the district nurse worked together well to achieve the best outcomes for them.

Staff gave us examples of how they worked with other health and social care professionals in the best interest of people. This included working with GPs, social workers, occupational therapist and district nurses. Staff told us they learnt from other professionals, for example a district nurse provided a training session on how to support person with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding tube.

We received positive feedback from partner agencies, for example the Local Authority, stating that the provider worked with them in an open and transparent way.

There were systems in place to support people in a way that is co-orientated with other agencies. There was a clear processes to ensure that all clients were supported safely and enhanced attention was payed to the new clients. For example when the new clients were discharged from the hospital, additional well-being checks were taking place to check they received sufficient support.

People told us they could access information and advice from staff, that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way that they could understand. People told us they had access to their own health records and care plans which were stored in their own homes. They could decide which personal information they wanted to be shared with other people. People told us staff communicated with them in the way they liked.

Leaders had good understanding of their responsibilities in line with the Accessible Information Standard. They gave us an example how they communicated with a person who did not speak English as their first language with the use of a Google translator. Staff knew people's communication needs well.

People's communication needs were clearly recorded in their care plans. There was GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) policy in place to ensure confidentiality. When shortfalls in the application of the policy were identified by the provider, immediate actions were taken to address it. People were provided with clear and transparent information regarding their care contracts and charges.

People were aware how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns or issues. People and their relatives felt confident that if they complained, the concerns would be dealt with. The people we spoke to who made complaints were happy with how the provider responded. People comments included, "This [complaint] was resolved very efficiently"; "When I needed to raise one complaint, I complained to the office and it was resolved quickly and promptly".

Leaders told us they welcomed feedback from people, both positive and negative. Leaders told us they saw complaints and concerns as an opportunity to make improvements. Staff gave us examples of how learning from complaints was incorporated into daily practise, for example changes were made to ensure people were informed if staff are running late. Leaders sent questionnaires to get people’s feedback and acted on people's voice. For example, improvements were being made to improve communication of people with the office staff.

There was a complaint policy in place and people were given a copy of the policy to keep at home. Complaints were being logged and investigated in accordance with the provider's policy. There were processes to gather people's feedback through calls to people and surveys. Outcomes of the survey's were shared with people and staff and actions were being taken to improve the service as a result of people's feedback.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People felt they could share their views and understood their rights, including their rights to equality and their human rights. None of the people and relatives we spoke to expressed any concerns about discrimination and inequality.

Leaders and staff understood the concepts of discrimination and inequality. The leaders were aware of and complied with their legal requirements regarding equality and human rights.

There was an equality and diversity policy in place to promote equality and reduce the risk of discrimination. There were processes in place to ensure that reasonable adjustments were made for people with different protected characteristics, for example disability.

People and their relatives told us they were asked about wishes regarding their future as part of initial assessments and care plan reviews.

Staff were able to identify clients who were approaching end of life and made appropriate referrals to ensure appropriate support for people was in place. Leaders told us about the ongoing improvements with the way they were supporting clients approaching end of life. For example, staff told us they were completing weekly check in telephone reviews with these clients and their families and adapting their care plan as changes came into account with support and health. Staff asked about people's future care preferences and recorded them in the care plans. Staff told us they worked closely with other professionals, including GPs and district nurses to ensure compassionate and dignified care for people approaching the end of life.

The provider had end of life care policy. People who were approaching end of life care had risk assessments in place, however the end of life care plans were not always person centred and required more detail. We shared that feedback with the leaders who assured us they were already in the process of reviewing them. People's wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation were clearly recorded.