Priscilla Wakefield 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

At our last inspection in May 2022, we did not change the rating of good in this area. We found the rating remained good during this assessment. The service was responsive to people’s needs and acted in a timely manner. People’s and their relatives views were taken into account, however we found the service needed to adopt a more person-centred approach to recording people’s care plans.

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.

People received person-centred care and treatment. People felt well cared for and believed that staff knew them well. The provider had a relatively newly implemented electronic system which included information about people’s needs and care routines and supported staff with record keeping.

Staff and leaders were knowledgeable about people's needs and backgrounds. Nursing staff we spoke to were very knowledgeable about people and were able to discuss in detail the many person-centred ways care was delivered. They had good clinical knowledge to provide good care and treatment and were supported by senior staff. They had received specific training to meet the needs of people using the service.

Care was delivered according to people's care plans and preferences. We observed that care was focused on individuals' needs, preferences, and wishes. There was a weekly program of activities for people to participate in, along with regular one-on-one visits for those who preferred not to join group activities or were not able to leave their rooms. Most people's rooms were personalised with their own belongings. Staff were clear about what to do in urgent care situations, such as falls. focusing on people's anxiety and distress if such circumstances and to be as responsive and supportive as possible. However, on the whole the care plans were generic and did not indicate that patients were involved in making decisions about their care and support although were written from their perspective, with “I statements”. Staff stated this was because patients lacked capacity. We recommend the provider adopts more person-centred approach to people’s care planning.

We found the local authority commissioners were in regular contact with the service and had supported improvement. The service reported and dealt with safeguarding concerns promptly however many safeguarding alerts were pending outcomes from the local safeguarding team, even though the service asked for updates. The service had a focus on involvement on a local and national level and contribute on data collection and processing to improve social and health care outcomes by participating or research initiatives such as DACHA and the VIVALDI Covid study.

However, we found there were ineffective systems, processes, and practices to reduce risk of harm for patients with new mental health issues.

Although the service had initiated clear communication with the local authority, referrals were not followed up by the latter in a timely manner, if at all.

Staff told us they had concerns about the processes linked to the community mental health teams and were not able to make direct referrals thus increasing risk of harm for people.

Patients’ care plans reflected their physical, mental, emotional, and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. However, they did not truly indicate that patients had been involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment. Care plans included a first page on the patients likes and dislikes however it was not clear if this information was reviewed or completed on admission.

Relatives and friends told us they knew how to raise a complaint, and we saw evidence of feedback from relatives being sought and taken into account, even though in a small number of cases people said they would like the service to have acted more quickly.

People told us staff knew them well and were respectful of their wishes and needs. We recommend the service explores further ways to seek and record people’s feedback input in their care planning.

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.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.