Wesley Place

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them, their families and their advocates where appropriate.

Detailed communication support plans were in place. Communication tools were tailored to each individual and available to them at all times to enable people to express their views, wishes and to make decisions.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff were insightful about people’s individual needs and had up-to-date knowledge about national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards.

There were professionals involved in the assessment of people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs. People were supported to live a healthy life, and professionals were engaged in reviews and assessments to ensure relevant information was incorporated into people’s care plans.

Professionals spoke positively about working with the service. Feedback included, “I have always found [staff] approachable and receive feedback well, I am also updated monthly and receive any further information as needed” and, “The service has a good relationship with the local GP and is able to access support as needed.”

Staff supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives. For example, staff supported people to eat healthy and varied diets. One professional told us, “There is a proactive approach to dietary options, and encouragement for each individual to have as active and varied a life as possible.” One relative told us, “Staff always prepare fresh healthy food and have been able to introduce food that [person] would not have eaten previously. Consequently, [person] appears healthier than when they lived at other residential homes.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. For example, staff robustly monitored seizure activity and analysed possible triggers. Staff implemented different actions in response, and this had a positive impact on people’s quality of life. One relative told us, “Since being at Wesley Place, [person’s] seizures have greatly reduced in occurrence and duration.”

People were actively supported and empowered to develop new skills. Feedback from relatives and advocates included, “Staff and management seem to continually strive to find ways to enhance [person's] life” and, “[Person’s] present needs to ensure their safety and wellbeing were being met, staff were aware of areas of development for [person] so were anticipating future development as well.”

People made their own choices and decisions on a day-to-day basis about what they did, what they ate and how they filled their time. Where people were not able to verbally communicate their choices, tailored communication plans were in place for staff to follow to ensure people were in control of their own lives.

Where people were not able to make their own decisions, appropriate legal authorisations were in place and relevant people were involved and consulted in the decision-making process. Some documentation in this area was not robustly completed. This had already been identified by management and a review in this area was underway.