Ailwyn Hall

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

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 requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. We found the service to be in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person-centred care; the activity provision did not always meet the needs of people in the service and was not being offered daily.

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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. All the relatives we spoke to felt people were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity and they listened to the needs of the people in the service. We spoke to healthcare professionals that work alongside the service, and they felt the staff were responsive in responding to people’s needs and they were caring. We observed staff were polite and showed empathy when talking to people.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. Drinks were not being offered during the evening, as most of the people in the service were in bed, this was not being thought of on an individual basis. However, we raised this with the management team, and they stated they would start to ensure drinks were offered to people who were still up. We spoke to relatives who said they participated in the review of care plans monthly to make sure that people’s needs were known. Healthcare professionals told us people had the right equipment to meet their needs. We observed people were being supported on an individual basis.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Staff felt the reduced activities hours had impacted people in the service. This was evidenced with our observations of people being disengaged and not stimulated. There were a range of ages within the service, and we were not assured there was a balance of different activities provided to meet all their needs. We reviewed the activity log and entries were poor. Some activities included being taken to their room.

The service had an activity plan, but this was not being followed. It had planned activities 7 days a week but on review of people’s activity care notes there was no entries recorded later than early afternoon and nothing recorded on a weekend apart from 1 individual having a visitor and going for a cigarette. However, relatives we spoke with felt the service provided a different variety of activities and felt they had improved over the last few months, they felt people were doing what they would like to do, and they could visit when they liked.

Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress. We observed staff sometimes responded to people’s needs appropriately however this was not consistent, we observed a situation between 2 people in the service becoming unsettled with each other. The staff did not respond immediately they observed the situation before intervening. This could have led to a physical altercation. However, all the relatives we spoke with said the staff were very prompt and they always answered call bells promptly when they visited the service. Senior staff that we spoke to explained processes they would take if they had concerns over an individual’s health.

The provider ensures workforce wellbeing. The staff we spoke with all expressed that the manager and deputy were supportive. Some staff had flexible working arrangements to work around personal commitments and everyone we spoke with felt they were able to raise concerns and felt confident that these would be investigated, they felt a valued member of staff. We reviewed the service’s processes and there were risk assessments in place to support people and we could see regular meetings to observe staff wellbeing.