Whitehaven Residential 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 remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People said they liked living at the service, saying “I love it here”, the staff are “very kind” and “There are people to help me”. Relatives said the staff were, “All very friendly” and “I can’t praise them highly enough”.

Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach and were not task-focussed. They were kind and polite to people and they spoke to people with warmth and genuine interest. A care professional said the “compassion and level of care is 1 of the best I know”.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff showed a sincere interest in people and demonstrated they knew them and their backgrounds by initiating conversations about people’s histories.

People and relatives said people were treated as individuals, with feedback including, “There is such attention to detail for each resident” and “All residents are treated as respected individuals, and the team takes the time to get to know each person”.

People were supported to express and follow their faith, for example, a local church regularly visited the service.

However, people’s written care plans lacked sufficient information to ensure any new staff were informed of people’s individual needs. For example, 2 people’s care plans did not contain information about their cultural, social, religious and communication needs.

There were not always systems in place to ensure people were provided with independence, choice and control.

The provider did not always provide sufficient opportunities for stimulation for everyone. We received mixed feedback about the activities at the service. One relative said, “They take [my relative] out whenever they can and they get their hair done every other week”. However, another told us, their family member could benefit from more stimulation. One staff member told us people hadn’t been out since an activities coordinator left. The provider told us another activities coordinator had recently been employed, and we saw some people joining in with seated games at the service.

People’s care plans lacked information about their day-to-day needs, routines, wants and wishes. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s needs. However, any new or agency staff would not have access to the level of information needed, to know how to support people.

There was limited choice at mealtimes with people only having 1 choice of meal. However, staff offered an alternative, such as a sandwich, when they did not want the main meal.

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

Relatives told us staff knew people well and could read their individual, non-verbal cues, such as indications people were becoming unwell, or needed assistance with personal care. Staff recognised changes in people’s conditions and responded appropriately to these, for example, by contacting medical services when people showed signs of becoming unwell.

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

Staff told us they felt well supported by the provider. Staff wellbeing was considered from the point they applied for their role and there were opportunities for promotion and to improve their skills. The provider was very visibly present, working with, and supporting the staff.

The provider told us they had positive relationships with staff and gave us verbal examples of how they supported them with their wellbeing.