Winchley 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 Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Inadequate.

This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.
 

This service scored 35 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff were observed to treat people with kindness and respect, and we saw some positive interactions. We received positive feedback from people who used the service and their relatives. A person told us, “Staff are nice and doing the best they can,” while a relative told us, “The staff are very good with [family member].” However, whilst staff were caring in their interactions with people, the systems in place, did not ensure people were always receiving a caring and compassionate service. People were supported to receive visitors as they wished with no restrictions in place.

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.
We found the daily care records were task focused and included limited personalised information. Care plans, when in place, did not always include people’s abilities, likes and dislikes, personal histories or what was important to them. A relative told us, “[Family member]] used to be a church goer, but they only get a visit from the church once a year now.” Although, the service held monthly church services’ Care plans did not include personalised goals or aims. We received mixed feedback from relatives, with a relative telling us, “When they are all in the lounge together it's not individual,” while another relative told us, “They do treat [them] individually.”

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 found that several people were receiving personal care at various times of the early morning with no reason, such as people’s choice, being recorded. For example, on 1 occasion the daily notes recorded that a person was woken for personal care at 02.08am, their care plan did not include that this was their wish. It was not clear from the records why the person was woken at this time.
The service did not have an activities plan in place and staff completed ad hoc activities. This system did not ensure people received social stimulation to reduce the risks of isolation and boredom. Feedback received from relatives raised a lack of activities in the service. A relative told us, “I have not seen any activities, the TV is on. I once saw a [person] doing a puzzle.” Another relative said, “[They] do bits and pieces and drawing.”
We received mixed feedback from staff. A staff member told us, “First I encourage to do their need independently if I think it's safe, If the resident struggles, I'll give support physically and vocally.” Another staff member told us, “I do not feel they are encouraged to be as independent as possible; I feel that basic care at time is all that people get.”

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. We found care records recorded that 1 person had had a toothache for several days, staff had administered pain relief, but no medical or dental advice had been sought.
People were not being supported to reposition as needed. For example, 1 person’s care needs summary recorded they needed assistance to reposition every 2 hours to reduce the risk of pressure injuries. However, daily records frequently recorded over 4 hours between repositions. This places the person as risk of pressure injury.
A relative told us, “The staff do not always understand what their needs are.”
 

The provider did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. We found that staff had not received regular supervisions or appraisals, which were a forum for staff to discuss any concerns, receive feedback about their performance and identify any training needs. With 2 staff members recorded as only receiving 1 supervision for all of 2025. A staff member told us, “Under previous management I don’t remember having any.”
We found that staff meetings, to keep staff updated with any changes in the service or requirements of their role, had not been held regularly with 2 being held in 2025.
Feedback from staff had not been sought in any different way.
We received mixed feedback from staff; with 1 staff member telling us, “I do not feel valued or appreciated in the slightest.” While another told us, “I am treated very well at work.” All staff spoken with said that they enjoyed their roles.