Whetstone Grange

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were detailed and reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs. However, people’s care did not always align with what was in their care plans. For example, people were not always receiving the personalised activities proposed for them or the amount of staff interaction their care plans promised.

During our inspection we saw 1 person doing a jigsaw and a few people going go out to visit a garden centre. Apart from that no activities were provided. Staff told us people were brought downstairs and sat in chairs in the lounges during the day. We witnessed this. Although people’s care needs were mostly being met, little attempt was made to address their quality of life or provide meaningful activities for them.

Managers said care staff were meant to be providing activities. However, staff told us they didn’t have time to do this on top of their other tasks. The provider said this issue would be addressed once a new activity co-ordinator was recruited.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

A person and a relative had concerns about how healthcare needs were met, understood, and shared. The person said they had had to call a GP themselves due to a healthcare issue as they felt there was a delay in addressing it. The relative said, “I never hear anything from these [staff] when [person’s] seen the doctor or got new medication or anything happens. I have to ask.”

Other relatives were satisfied with how staff responded to people’s healthcare needs. A relative said, “They will call the GP if there’s ever a problem and [person’s] not well. Normally they let me know the outcome on my next visit (usually visits daily).”

A person told us the service used to have a visiting GP every 2 weeks, but this was no longer the case. Managers said they had approached a local surgery and were arranging to have regular GP visits to the service re-instated.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were set out in their care plans, however people and relatives said information was not always communicated to them in the way they understood.

A person told us staff reviewed their care plan with them but didn’t always understand that they found it difficult to read what was written, and they had to remind staff of this. The person said they tried hard to read it themselves but couldn’t.

A relative said they liked an activity that sometimes took place at the service but weren’t sure when this was taking place. They told us, “There’s no way of knowing because there’s no notice board up and I don’t do on-line.”

The provider should ensure that information provided at the service meets the Accessible Information Standard and make it clear in people’s care plans how best information can be communicated to them.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People attended a residents’ meeting in July 2025. The minutes showed people knew who to go to if they had a complaint, and that they were satisfied with the meals and care provided. However, people asked for more outings and there was no action in the minutes to show how this would be addressed. People also asked if they could go into the garden and were told ‘The garden is fully accessible.’ This did not consider how people could use the garden if they could not access it independently. Eight people attended this meeting, and it was not clear how the views of other people using the service were listened to.

A relative told us they were not involved in discussions or reviews regarding their family members’ care plans. They were unsure if their family member had capacity or was subject to a DoLS. The provider must ensure there are strategies in place to involve families in people’s care and support, if this is desired.

The service provided a monthly newsletter for people and relatives to let them know about news and events. However, this was only accessible to people who could read the written word.

People and relatives said if they had any complaints they would raise them with staff. A person told us, “If I’ve got any problems, they [staff] will sort it out."

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider had not always taken action to prevent or minimise the inequality in experience or outcomes for people. Reasonable adjustments had not been made for one person regarding their bedroom, and another person told us staff did not understand or accommodate their disability.

The environment had not been adapted to meet the needs of people living with dementia. However, the premises were tidy and clutter free making it safe for people to make their way to different areas.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The environment was not suited to the needs of people living with dementia. There was no evidence that consideration had been given to those needs regarding the décor, furnishings, artwork, signage, and acoustic comfort. In addition, there was little for people to see and do at the service. For example, there were no memory boxes, appropriate music, or sensory items like soft fabrics, simple puzzles, familiar books, and items for sorting and folding.

The provider was aware of this shortfall and addressing it. They told us managers were undertaking an environmental design audit to identify what needed to be done to improve the environment for people living with dementia and others.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s decisions and what mattered to them at the end of their lives were recorded in their care plans. These included ReSPECT plans and Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions, where appropriate. This helped to ensure people’s wishes regarding care at the end of their lives were respected and they achieved a dignified, peaceful death.

Staff were trained in end of life care. The provider had policies and procedures in place on how information would be shared if a person reached the end of their life. This helped to ensure people had the care and support they needed. People’s funeral plans, when they had them, were discussed and recorded.