Deep Heart Care Wiltshire

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. This is the first assessment for this service since it registered on 6 October 2023. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 were not provided with person-centred care as staff did not have all the information about people’s needs. Care plans were not detailed or accurate and some contained language that was not person-centred. There was little evidence that people had a regular review of their care so any changes needed to the care plan could be identified.

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. Staff were not provided with information about people’s health conditions and who was involved in supporting the person with health needs. Some people received continuity with their care from having the same staff, but some people felt care lacked continuity. One relative told us, “There is no consistency in carers. It would be nice to have that. when [person] fell over in the bathroom, the carer was here but was no help at all.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager told us they would organise for people to have information in ways that they understood. For example, if needed people could have documents that had a larger font or were simplified. People and relatives told us they had folders in their homes which contained information they needed.

The provider enabled people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People and relatives told us they knew how to complain and would do so if they needed to. The registered manager told us people had a copy of the complaints procedure in files in their homes. The provider had completed questionnaires with people to gather their views. Those we reviewed shared positive feedback about the care people received. One person said, “Communication is very good, and I have regular phone calls from the office to check if all is ok with the service.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Not everyone using the service was satisfied with their care packages. Whilst some people spoke positively about their care worker and a consistency with care, other people were not receiving that level of service. People shared feedback about staff being continually late or having staff that did not communicate with them effectively. Whilst we were visiting the office, we heard a person phoning the registered manager to see where staff were as their visit was an hour late. They had not been informed of the delay to their visit. The service was not providing a consistently equitable service to all the people it supported. The provider had a website, but it only mentioned their other service in Northampton. The Wiltshire service was not mentioned on the website which did not encourage people to use it for information purposes.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. The registered manager was aware of the potential for people to face discrimination. However, staff had not been provided with training or guidance for people they were supporting who were at risk of experiencing discrimination and poor outcomes. Staff supporting people with learning disabilities had not been provided with any training on how to work with and support this group of people.

People were not always 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. During this assessment there was nobody receiving end of life care. However, records we reviewed did not contain any information regarding end of life wishes. In addition, some relatives told us staff were not aware of Do Not Resuscitate (DNAR) wishes. The registered manager told us they had started working with people during this assessment to make sure wishes were recorded.