West Hill Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls

We found the service to be in breach of the legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect.

This service scored 35 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Staff did not always treat people with dignity. For example, one person was observed eating their lunch some distance from table, their food spilling onto the floor. The person attempted to move closer to the table but wasn’t able to do so. We enquired with staff if the person had been asked if they wanted to move closer to the table, and staff said they hadn’t asked them. Staff then did so, and the person happily accepted staff support to move closer to the table.

When we observed a person wearing a stained jumper. We raised this with staff who shouted across the lounge regarding the person’s jumper in front of other people. The staff member had not considered this person’s dignity in relation to their personal care.

Staff supported one person to eat. The interaction was rushed and staff repeatedly asked the person if they were ready for more food when the person was clearly still chewing.

Feedback from some people about the staff who supported them was mainly positive. One person said, “All the staff are kind, if you ask them to do something they do it.” However, another person told us, “A [staff member] comes in and they shower me, they’re lovely, you can always find one who’s a bit moody”

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take enough account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

One relative told us, “Culturally, sometimes [my relative] could listen to [particular] music or watch [particular TV] channels.” However, they were not supported to do so. Another person expressed frustration that staff did not know how to cook certain cultural meals.

People’s care plans and risk assessments were generic in some areas. For example, a falls risk assessment for one person stated appropriate footwear was to be worn, however, the person was cared for in bed. The person’s care plan was not specific to them and their needs.

We observed a number of people were not wearing socks during the inspection. We asked staff about this. Staff told us people removed their socks and therefore staff had not put them on. However, when we looked at people’s records there was no mention of this or any reference to why people were not fully dressed.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff told us they gave people as many options and choices as possible. One staff member told us, “There is one person who walks very slowly and likes to eat in the dining room. We give them the time they need to get to the dining room and eat with their friends. Another person we are supporting to make a cup of tea by giving them the milk to pour and sugar. They have a lovely smile on their face when they do this.”

Most people told us they were offered choice. One person said, “I asked for shepherd’s pie, they said I won’t get it but I usually ask for something different from the menu, and I get it. It’s good here”. Another person said, “At the resident’s meeting they said they will be changing the menu, they’re looking into it, we were asked for suggestions.” However, we observed one-person express frustration when they were not given choices or control over what was happening. Another person told us, “Sit here, do this, do that, I can’t do what I want to do. I’m fed up with not doing what I want to do. I will sit down all the bloody afternoon. I’m fed up with sitting and waiting and waiting”.

The provider did not listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in a consistent timely manner.

Records showed there were sometimes long gaps in some people’s support. For example, one person required support from staff to maintain a consistent toilet routine every 2 to 3 hours to reduce the risk from accidents and distress. However, we found long gaps in their daytime records in relation to their continence support, and we were not assured that continence checks were being actively monitored.

However, most people told us they were happy with the staff and their needs were supported. One relative told us, “If [my relative] needs help to the toilet they help [them], they watch [them] and other clients …. they’re very good at that on his floor.”