Westhope Place

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

Managers and staff did not always work in a person-centred way to meet the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people. They did not always follow best practice and the principles of Right support, right care, right culture and were not ensuring that these principles were carried out. People were not always supported with individual communication plans/ passports that detailed effective and preferred methods of communication.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not always at the centre of their care and support. Staff did not always communicate with people when providing support. For example, a staff member moved a person in their wheelchair away from the dining table without communicating or checking they were happy to be moved. Whilst other staff were seen engaging people to make choices and decisions about activities. Support plans were not in regular use by staff however, they generally reflected people’s needs and included some communication assessments detailing how people communicated including actions they may take when happy or upset. Understanding people’s communication and/or sensory needs is fundamental to planning and delivering good quality person-centred care. We communicated with one person using finger spelling and they spoke positively about the support they received from staff.

Staff told us records relating to peoples support were inconsistent and sometimes contradictory as a result they relied on their colleagues to inform them of any changes to peoples needs. Some staff knew people well and were knowledgeable about their needs. Senior staff who had recently been brought in by the provider to support Westhope Place expressed concern with the lack of clear information and potential impact this had on the support people received. One told us, " This isn’t what I would expect to find in my services.”

Whilst in general staff involved people in choices and engaged in conversation appropriately some staff did not always speak to people in a respectful way. For example, the tone used by a staff member was infantile and this did not support the person's dignity or choices.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

Staff did not always engage in communication with people, for example one staff member failed to engage with a person when they were attempting to communicate choices about where they sat. Observations of staff included some positive engagement with people for example one person was supported by staff to help with the dishwasher they were clearly enjoying being involved. Staff told us they also liked to help make drinks for others.

In general staff were able to demonstrate how they tailored support to the individual and were aware of peoples likes and dislikes , however one staff member was observed not respecting a person's rights to make choices about taking their medicines. A senior staff member intervened and addressed this with the staff member concerned. Staff we spoke with understood their role in ensuring people's equality and diversity needs were met. Training records showed that there was compliance in completing Equality and Diversity training.

People were not always involved in their ongoing support or setting outcomes that they wanted. We were shown key working records for two people these recorded activities that they had completed, however they did not evidence what the outcome was or what the person got from this activity. Whilst the form asked questions to detail people’s goals and aspirations staff had not completed these sections and as a result were not able to evidence ongoing support and setting outcomes and targets for things people wished to do or achieve.

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