Archived: Winsford Grange Care 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 inadequate. 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 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives we spoke with told us that staff were kind and caring, comments included, “Staff very good with a great sense humour. If you can’t do anything they help”, “Staff nice they help me wash.” However, one relative told us, “Staff are alright, some better than others.” We observed some staff talking to people about topics they could relate to which encouraged conversations and engagement. However, we also observed a staff member not engaging with a person whilst providing support. We observed another person catheter bag was full and required emptying, this had gone unnoticed by staff, we requested a staff member support this person.

We observed that people were not consistently encouraged to maintain their independence. For example, when a person required assistance with walking, staff opted to use a wheelchair rather than supporting them to walk. We observed that while some people were offered a choice regarding what they would like to eat, others were not given the same opportunity.

People told us they were given a choice of what they wanted to wear and what time they went to bed. One person said, “I pick my own clothes to wear in a morning and staff ask me if they can help with washing and dressing.” Another person told us, “When I am tired, I go to bed.”

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. Where people could not verbalise their needs, there were no alternative methods of communication to ensure they could be involved in decisions about them including future care planning. We spoke to a staff member who informed us one person was hard of hearing; there were no communication aids in place to support them to communicate and engage with people. Relatives could visit when they wanted, there were no restrictions in place. There was a recommendation for visitors to not visit during protected mealtimes however, we observed relatives visiting and supporting during this time.

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 one person repeatedly requested their lunch. Staff responded by saying it wouldn’t be much longer but proceeded to serve others who had not made a request. This person appeared distressed and waited approximately 10 minutes before being served. Where people could not use a call bell, staff completed regular checks to ensure people were safe, for some people the use of sensor mats was required.

Most staff felt well-supported by the registered manager, and feedback indicated a positive working environment. Comments included, “[The registered manager] is great -I can go to them with anything,” and “The registered manager is so good; they are thankful for everything we do.” One staff member commented, “The management keep themselves to themselves, but they still do come on the floor.” However, gaps in training specific to people’s individual needs meant that care was not always delivered in a fully person-centred way.