Well Springs Nursing 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 outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect.
 

This service scored 55 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.
People did not always experience care and support that upheld their dignity. During the inspection, we observed occasions where staff spoke to people in a way that could be perceived as patronising or dismissive. For example, a staff member repeatedly questioned a person about eating a biscuit before telling them they had been "naughty" for doing so. We also observed a staff member speak abruptly to a person in a communal area, instructing them to sit down without offering reassurance or explanation. Following this interaction, the person appeared unhappy and frustrated. We also observed an occasion where a person who appeared distressed did not receive support or compassion from staff. These interactions did not always help people feel valued, respected or listened to.
However, we also observed many kind and caring interactions. Relatives spoke positively about staff, with 1 relative telling us, "The staff are very kind and caring. They are lovely with [person]."
 

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

People were not always treated as individuals. We observed occasions where interactions were task-focused, staff did not always involve people in conversations about their care and support, and people were sometimes discussed in communal areas in a way that did not fully promote their individuality or inclusion. For example, staff loudly discussed one person's sleeping patterns in a communal area by asking, "Did she not sleep last night?" We also observed a person calling out for support who did not initially receive a response. This meant opportunities to provide meaningful engagement and person-centred support were sometimes missed.

However, people told us they were able to make choices about their daily lives, staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people's histories and preferences, and we saw examples of some personalised care, including staff respecting a person's wish to remain in bed later and honouring a 'do not disturb' sign on their bedroom door.
 

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.

We observed occasions where staff made decisions on people's behalf, including providing drinks and snacks without offering choices, not routinely offering different meal options. Protective aprons were also placed on people routinely rather than staff checking whether they wished to wear one. We also observed a staff member remove a person's apron and direct them by saying, "Come on, let's go", without first explaining what was happening or seeking their agreement. Some people did not have access to a call bell to summon assistance independently, and there was limited evidence that identified strategies to support people accessing the community, to reduce distress, had been implemented.
However, we did observe some positive examples of staff respecting people's preferences and some staff responded appropriately when some people expressed choices about their care and support.
 

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed occasions where people appeared distressed, uncomfortable or were calling out for support without a timely response from staff, and some people repeatedly sought staff attention before receiving support. We also observed a person attempting to mobilise independently despite requiring assistance, resulting in staff having to urgently seek additional support, which increased the risk of harm.
However, we also saw examples of responsive care, including staff supporting people with personal care, mobility, refreshments and providing reassurance and support in line with their communication needs.
 

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt supported by managers and had access to wellbeing initiatives, practical support and opportunities to discuss concerns. The provider recognised staff contributions through a range of reward and recognition schemes, helping staff feel valued and appreciated. Staff told us morale was generally good, which helped promote wellbeing, engagement and retention.