Weatherstones Court

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 preferred methods of communication of people were assessed and actively used to ensure peoples’ preferences were recognised. Support plans were devised in conjunction with people and their families. Relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint. Any complaints had been recorded and investigated appropriately. The service worked in partnership with other agencies to promote the interests of people. People and families were always informed of issues relating to their care and clear explanations given. Care practice meant that people experienced equity in access to all services and opportunities.

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.

Families confirmed that the service was very "person-centred" .

Staff told us they sought to enable people to determine their own preferred routines and actions for each day. We saw these decisions were respected. People were treated as individuals with specific needs such as communication, for example. There was a range of different preferred methods of communication used by people and this was encouraged. Staff received awareness and training in non-verbal communication methods such as Makaton and Picture Exchange Communication symbols/pictures (known as PECS). Staff told us that this ensured barriers to communication were removed and that a true view of people's preferences could be obtained.

People told us about the various activities and opportunities they had in the community. These included meals out, visits to local leisure facilities and visits to and from relatives. Some people preferred to remain mainly within their own homes working with staff on a one to one basis but this preference was respected and was part of their assessed needs and preferences.

Managers understood the diverse health and care needs of people and the agencies they could referred to. This meant care supported choice and continuity. Staff were familiar with the area in which people lived.

Partners told us that they were happy with the level of engagement they had with the service and believed that the service had a detailed knowledge of all the people they supported; in particular their health, welfare and communication.

Staff received up to date and accurate information about peoples' needs and their progress on a daily basis. Systems were effective in ensuring accurate information was available in appropriately adapted formats for people.

We observed people being encouraged to use their preferred methods of communication. People responded well to staff taking the time to explain things either verbally or using other communication aids.

Staff provided examples on how people communicated. They were aware of what general non verbal communication such as facial expression, touch or key words indicated how people were feeling or what they wanted. For one person, staff demonstrated to us how a person was greeted and this had had a positive response from this person.

Communication needs of people were assessed and used. Support plans showed information on how certain phrases or comments indicated preferences, for example. Information was presented to people in an accessible format, for example, complaints procedures or key events.

People did not comment on how they could make a complaint. Families were able to outline that they knew how to make a complaint and while they did not have any current concerns; they felt confident that they would be listened to. People were listened to and were in control of their support.

Staff told us that the management team were supportive and approachable and they felt comfortable with making suggestions to improve the service. They felt that managers listened and involved them.

The provider had systems in place to enable people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Relatives and staff confirmed they felt comfortable raising concerns or making suggestions and felt listened to.

People did not comment on this.

Staff confirmed that there were no barriers to people in accessing health services, for example, and that people could access GP services as well as other specialist services in line with their physical and psychological needs. The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Support plans provided an ongoing commentary on the health needs of people. We saw numerous examples of how progress in health was assessed and saw that people were referred to health agencies immediately. Where support needs changed, advice was sought as soon as possible. This included general health check-ups or appointments to specialists who could assist with particular health issues. Support plans and our observations provided evidence that people accessed the community in line with their preferences and with staff support to ensure their safety.

Families told us that the service was non-discriminatory and that people received equal opportunities within the service and the community. They confirmed that all people were treated equally.

Staff told us that they were not aware of anyone experiencing discrimination either within the service or when accessing the community. Staff told us that there was an anti-discriminatory culture built into the service and that any discriminatory practice would be challenged. Leaders ensured people were placed at the centre of their support and worked in partnership with people to achieve positive outcomes.

Processes ensured people were treated fairly and support tailored to ensure they had equal opportunity to access appropriate health and social care. All staff could access meetings and supervision sessions. All had access to training. The manager and staff sought the views about people who were most likely to experience inequality.

People did not comment on this.

Staff priorities lay with promoting a good quality of life for people and recognising different stages in life, this also included supporting people to make decisions that would maintain the quality of care at the end of their lives.

People were supported to plan for any changes affecting their lives so that they could respond to these with support. Support plans contained information about arrangements for people reaching the end of their lives.