Hepworth 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 remained 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.

Care plans did not always contain up to date, correct information. Access to care was

sometimes delayed and we identified incidents where the providers policy indicated medical

advice should have been sought but wasn’t. Care plans lacked guidance for managing risks.

Support for planning future life changes, including end-of-life care was poor.

This service scored 39 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment

choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to

any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care plans did not fully capture their physical,

mental, emotional, and social needs. We observed limited meaningful engagement from staff.

People expressed mixed feedback about activities. One individual stated, "Activities are not for

me, there are some every day, but it’s all noisy, and I don’t like when it’s noisy." However,

another person shared a more positive experience, saying, "Staff learned quickly about me, they

asked what I like and don’t like."

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. For example, the provider did not always refer to other health

professionals promptly to support joined-up working.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats

that were tailored to individual needs. For example, we found care plans were missing or did not

contain information about people’s current support needs.

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. For example, care plans lacked detail and did not always indicate where a person had been involved in its development and their wishes in relation to their care. Where people lacked capacity, assessments did not indicate their past wishes had always been considered. However, the provider did carry out a yearly survey which included an action plan to develop areas following this feedback. The provider had also recently introduced a new signing in system for visitors where they could leave a rating. Any ratings below a certain threshold, the nominated individual would make contact with to gather further, more detailed feedback.

The provider did not make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they

needed when they needed it. Staff had not always contacted medical professionals for advice

and guidance when this was required, for example, in relation to head injuries and emotional

distress.

We could not be assured staff and leaders actively listened to all information about people who

are most likely to experience inequality in experiences and outcomes. We found safeguarding

concerns were not always identified or reported, and accident and incident forms were not

always completed or reviewed by leaders. Care plans did not always provide guidance on how

to manage known risks.

People were not 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. For example, some

people did not have end of life care plans in place. Where these were in place, they contained

limited information and did not outline peoples wishes.