Westacre 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff did not all consistently treat people compassionately. Some people reported they had an inconsistent experience.

The last resident survey showed 100 percent of respondents strongly agreed, that staff treated them with kindness and compassion. However, people and relatives we spoke with provided mixed feedback about how caring staff were. Whilst many were positive in their feedback, others were less so. Some people said, “They look after me well,” “They treat them [people] with respect and dignity” and “Staff are fantastic.” Other people said, “Some are kind. Some are not,” “Some [staff] don’t smile” and “There’s not a lot of interaction between staff and residents.” People had contrasting views of how they experienced staff. The registered manager has since told us they will continue to monitor staff interactions with people to ensure people experience consistency of standards in relation to compassionate and dignified care.

We saw at lunchtimes whilst some staff interacted well with people when assisting them to eat their meal. Other staff, whilst not rushing people, missed the opportunity to interact with them, they supported people in silence rather than chatting with them. The registered manager’s last 2 lunchtime experience audits also noted some staff were, 'task focused' in their communications with people during mealtimes. The registered manager was aware of this issue and working on making the required improvements with staff. The 2 audits showed improvements were being made in this area and actions were noted to further improve.

However, other care staff we saw treated people kindly and with dignity overall. They knocked before entering and were polite to people. The provider had measures in place such as privacy film on the ground floor windows to promote and protect people's dignity. Staff understood how to uphold people’s dignity.

People’s care plans and records did not always provide sufficient written information about areas such as their preferences or beliefs, to inform and guide staff.

Staff had access to written information about people’s life history, family relationships and what mattered most to them within their biography. However, there was a lack of written information about people’s preferred routines and preferences for their care delivery. A person's care plan said they had a variable sleep pattern at night and required 1 staff’s assistance to prepare for bed. However, we were told they regularly called out at night. There was a lack of written detail for staff about how best to support them at night if disturbed.

We received some feedback about staff getting people up early, which was not their choice, and people not being showered as often as they wished. People’s care plans did not note their preferred routine for getting up and going to bed, whether they liked a shower or bath, or how often. Whilst staff spoken with were able to tell us about people’s preferences there was a lack of written information to inform staff. We raised this with the registered manager who advised they would discuss this feedback with staff and reinforce the importance of ensuring people's preferences regarding personal care routines, including wake-up times and showering arrangements, were regularly reviewed, respected, and clearly documented.

The provider had invested in champion roles for staff in relation to dementia and end of life care. The PiR stated the purpose of this was to, 'better understand how to incorporate protected characteristics such as race, religion, belief, and gender into care planning.' People were asked to complete the provider’s, 'This is me' document when they moved in. However, it did not ask people about their culture, faith and religious beliefs. People’s end of life care plan noted their religious needs. However, we did not also see reference to people’s religion within their general care plan or biography, or a record of whether they wished for any support to practice their beliefs.

However, we saw evidence of how people’s religious needs were met. There was a regular church service and there was a quiet lounge within the home which people could use for their spiritual needs.

We saw people could personalise their bedroom to their individual preference and tastes.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff told us they gave people choices about their personal care and routines and people were heard to be given choices about what they ate and drank, where they spent their time and what they did.

There was a weekly activity schedule and there were group activities for people to participate in if they wished, across 7 days a week. People were provided with a range of home-based activities, external entertainers and trips out. People who stayed in their bedrooms were also provided by staff with 1:1 session’s. A relative told us, “There is always things going on, singing, dancing, therapy dog,” and “They are good at activities.”

People's care plans noted what they could do independently, for example if they could re-position themselves, walk, eat and drink or wash independently.

People could see their visitors as they wished to, there were no set visiting hours.
 

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Some people’s biographies reviewed contained some information about what made people feel better when they were upset. Staff were observed to be responsive overall to signs people required or wanted assistance. We saw staff responded promptly when people asked them for assistance.

Staff were sensitive to signs people were distressed overall and intervened. They provided people with support and reassurance. However, we did note there were occasions when some staff were less responsive or less aware of people than others. This has been fed back to the registered manager for them to address with staff.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff spoken with told us they felt valued by the provider and supported within their role. The May 2026 staff survey showed 96.8 percent of staff agreed or strongly agreed that their input was valued and they had the training and guidance required to do their job well.

Staff received a range of support in their role through their induction, supervisions, appraisal and training. There were also opportunities for professional development. Staff had access to an employee assist scheme to support them with their wellbeing if required. The provider recognised staff’s contribution to the service through their employee of the month scheme.