Wisteria House (Woolwell) Dementia Care Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.



This is the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 81 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There was a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. The provider listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Managers completed root cause analysis of any incidents to identify learning, and routinely reviewed external information, such as serious case reviews.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. When a person moved to an alternative service staff ensured full care plans were provided to the new provider. Managers were open and honest about people’s needs to ensure safe transitions.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.  People felt safe. One person said, “The staff are very kind.” Staff completed safeguarding training and felt comfortable raising concerns. Managers ensured there were sufficient staff to support people who needed additional support and supervision to keep everybody safe from harm.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Staff managed and mitigated risks to enable people to take part in daily tasks. For example, visiting the shops or helping with the laundry safely.

The provider was fully aware of all potential risks in the care environment and controlled them well. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The environment was specifically designed with bespoke features to mitigate risk and reduce stress and anxiety. The provider had considered the specific needs of people living with dementia when designing the environment and people had easy access to both internal and external spaces which were safe, promoted independence and provided sensory stimulation. For example, the communal bathrooms used voice activated electronic devices to play music. Staff told us that where people had previously declined personal care because it made them anxious, the music made it a relaxing and enjoyable experience. This positively impacted peoples emotional and physical wellbeing by ensuring they had regular personal care. Motion sensors were installed in people’s bedrooms, which supported staff to monitor people without disturbing them at night. The provider told us this meant people slept better, were more engaged in activities during the day and reduced the risk of falls.

The provider made sure there were always enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received thorough support, supervision and strong development opportunities. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Three full time registered managers worked at the service. Each had specific areas of responsibility to focus on. There was always a manager on duty at the weekends, and on call out of working hours. There were also two trainee managers working in the service and staff were supported to develop and progress in house. Staff told us staffing levels were good. One staff member said, “The staffing is good here, there is always between 6 and 7 of us and if we are short a manager will come out and help.” Staff told us that if people couldn’t sleep at night, staffing levels meant staff had time to sit and talk with people, relaxing in one of the communal lounges, offering them a warm drink or light snack and spending time reassuring them. In addition to the care team, there were dedicated ‘quality of life’ staff working seven days a week. These staff members focused on social interactions, activities and emotional support. One person’s relative said, “They always seem to have lots of staff around and there’s always someone to find.” This meant people had emotional support when they needed it and built warm friendships with staff. Staff were able to support people with one-to-one activities or hobbies as well as daily group activities, and people were routinely supported to go out to the shops, or for short day trips. This meant people were living active, full lives supported by staff who knew them well.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff responsible for general cleaning were on duty seven days a week, and all staff were trained in infection control, effective hand hygiene and food hygiene. There were sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Good systems were in place to manage medicines, and work had been done to minimise the risk of errors. We observed staff administering medicines safely.