Whetstone Grange

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 requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with 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.

A person said staff didn’t always listen to them or communicate with them in a kind and respectful way.They said some staff left items in their bedroom out of reach, and when they called for assistance ‘one of two staff’ told them, “Have you just rung me for that!” They said because of this, “I’ve had to assert myself sometimes [with the staff].”

The person also told us care and support treatment wasn’t always delivered in line with their preferences and wishes.They said their personal care was often late in the mornings and their hair was washed ‘very rarely’.

Another person said all the staff should know about a disability they had, but that wasn’t the case. They told us, “They don’t think about that. I do have to tell some of them.”

Other people made positive comments about the staff. A person said, “The staff are the best thing about [the service] because they’re always helpful and in a good mood whether they feel like it or not.” Another person told us, “The staff are very friendly and always happy to help.”

During our inspection we observed many caring interactions between staff and people using the service. Staff reassured people if they were distressed, talking with them in a kind, calm way. A person described a staff member as ‘full of personality, very caring’. Later, we saw this staff member interacting with people in one of the lounges. People brightened up in this staff member’s presence and were soon talking, singing, and laughing along with them.

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.

A person’s bed was suitable for their needs but not of a standard shape/size and the service’s bed linen did not fit it. The person said they had to buy their own bed linen, but this did not fit well either. This meant the person was partially lying on the plastic mattress cover. We told managers who agreed to address this shortfall.

A person’s care plan stated that to relieve their frustration and improve their mood, staff should provide them with ‘meaningful activities that align with their interests such as light puzzles, art or music therapy’. None of these activities were available to the person when we inspected.

A person went to bed in the early afternoon. They told us “There are no activities here.” So, they said, they liked to lie in bed watching TV in the afternoons.

The provider told us the service’s activities co-ordinator had recently left, however, they were recruiting a replacement. In the meantime, some people had the opportunity to go on a weekly minibus trip to places of interest.

Other people said staff treated them individually. A person said staff had moved them to a bigger room and they were happy as this better suited their needs. Another person liked to do jigsaws and staff ensured they had space and a table to do this. A further person told us, “I go out sometimes and people can visit me anytime.”

The provider had policies and procedures to support people with needs relating to equality and diversity.

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 sat with a group of 5 people in the quiet lounge. The TV was loud and showing a young persons’ reality TV show which no-one was watching. It was difficult to talk with people over the volume of the TV, and we couldn’t find the remote control to turn it down.

This was not a suitable environment for people due to the noise, and the programme may not have been what people wanted to watch, if they wanted to watch anything at all. The provider said they had already identified that aspects of the environment were not ideal for people living with dementia and others, and the service’s managers were addressing this.

Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People and relatives said staff were quick to respond if a person needed assistance. A person told us their call bell was always answered in less than 10 minutes. Another person commented, “If I buzz in the night, somebody always comes very quickly. They see to me and make sure I’m tucked up in bed.”

During our inspection staff were alert to people’s needs and took time to observe, communicate, and engage people in discussions about their immediate needs. For example, if a person wanted to mobilise staff were quickly by their side offering support and walking aids where necessary.

Relatives told us staff were responsive if a person was distressed. A relative said, “They’re very aware. They do seem to be in control of it and own it. They will keep checking. If anybody is [distressed] they will take them to another area.”

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff had not always had the training they needed to provide safe, effective, person-centred care. Staff had not been trained in supporting people with sensory loss or Parkinson’s disease, despite people with these conditions using the service. Other key training courses had only been completed by a minority of staff. This meant staff might not have the knowledge and confidence they needed to provide appropriate care to all the people they supported.

Staff did not have regular opportunities to provide feedback, raise concerns, or suggest ways to improve the service. A staff member told us, “No staff meetings yet. No one to ones. Messages on phone for communication.” Managers told us staff meetings and supervisions were being planned, and these would give staff the opportunity to provide feedback on the service.

Some staff expressed concerns about proposed shift changes which they said would impact on their well-being and work/life balance. The provider said this was being addressed.

The provider had introduced an employee assistance programme offering staff confidential support for personal and work-related issues. Managers said staff could go straight to the provider or the provider’s quality assurance team if they wanted to provide feedback on the service or raise concerns.