Versita Care Ltd

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 service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s care plans reflected their needs including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. People with a learning disability were recognised as individuals with a life ahead of them. People had been supported where they wished to learn new skills. We were told how well some people’s activities and support were personalised to enable them to pursue their interests and activities. Staff sought to support people in a person-centred way and their care plans noted their involvement. However, care plans could have better reflected people’s views, opinions and choices in the way they were written. This was brought to the provider’s attention, and they have since taken action to address this.

The diverse needs of some of the people cared for were only partially understood. In particular this impacted the care of people with some mental health diagnoses. Whilst people had continuity of staff who provided their care staff worked across a range of agencies and teams to support the provision of people’s care. Not everyone’s care was delivered in a way which met their assessed needs. Gaps in the service design put some people at greater risk of receiving poorer care. However, measures were taken to remove or mitigate barriers related to the care of people with a learning disability. People were provided with staff who could drive or transport where required to enable them to attend their activities.

The service did not always supply information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People's care plans noted if they needed to be provided in an easy read format, however, these were not in place. The provider has since told us they are in the process of addressing this. However, we saw people were provided with other information which related to their care in a pictorial format if required. People had pictorial aids to assist them communicating, making choices and planning their day where required.

People were able to make complaints about their care or treatment. People were supported to access advocacy where required. Relatives all knew who to raise any issues with. The provider had a complaints policy. Processes were in place to investigate complaints, and we saw evidence where complaints had been made the provider had investigated and taken action.

Most people can access the care and support they need when they need it. Not everyone with very complex care needs could access the level of care and support they required in a way that worked for them. Not everyone reported people’s needs were well understood. However, people whose primary need was a learning disability either told us or we observed could access the care and support they required overall. Staff had completed moving and handling training to support a person’s mobility needs.

Not everyone fed back people’s rights were upheld or that their experiences were fully listened to. They did not always feel concerns they had highlighted had been listened to or acted upon. However, people were all supported by staff to access the community facilities they wished to use and to pursue their interests.

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. People's end of life wishes had been noted within their care plans.