Sir Aubrey Ward House

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 65 (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.

We observed staff treating people kindly, providing them verbal and physical comfort. People and their relatives consistently provided positive feedback about their treatment and care, and confirmed that staff treated them with kindness, dignity, and respect. Comments included, “Oh absolutely. I don’t think you could get any better,” and “[Activity co-ordinator] is lovely. The sun simply shines out of her.”

A professional also confirmed they were treated with respect. They told us, “Senior carers are very good” and “[Activity coordinator] also goes above and beyond for residents.”

Staff consistently spoke with compassion about people they supported.

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, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were supported by staff who knew their backgrounds and life histories well. Staff shared examples of how they supported people to play to their strengths, for example, encouraging 1 person to assist them with paperwork and administration, as their previous employment was secretarial work. A staff member described supporting a person to manage their own bedtime routine at their own pace and playing their favourite music videos to assist them to sleep. Another staff member shared they had brought a bible to the service, to read from to provide comfort to another person.

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 observed people not always being offered choices of drinks or food at mealtimes. We observed a person asking for a different drink, and staff informed them there was none of that particular drink available. Later on, an inspector found the drink available in the kitchen store. We gave feedback to the provider, and on the second day of our visit, we observed people were offered more choices.

However, people’s care plans contained information relating to their abilities, and guided staff to encourage people to carry out aspects of their care independently. For example, 1 person’s care plan described clear steps for staff to follow so the person could carry out their own personal care. People confirmed that staff supported them to maintain their independence. A staff member described building a relationship with 1 person so they could support her with distress during personal care.

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 call bells and sensor mats unplugged, meaning staff would not always have been able to respond to calls for assistance. For example, 1 person who had their sensor mat unplugged and another person who had their call bell unplugged were both assessed as being a high risk of falls. This meant they were at an increased risk of harm, as staff would not always be alerted if they required assistance to mobilise.

Staff described workload pressures impacting on their time available to speak to people. A staff member told us, “I wish I could just have the time to sit with people and provide them comfort when they were distressed.”

However, records showed call bells had been mostly answered within 5 minutes of people using them, in line with the provider’s policy. Records evidenced checks of sensor equipment in people’s daily notes. We observed a person asking for assistance to go to the toilet, and staff came to assist them almost immediately.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, however, did not always enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff spoke positively about their colleagues and acknowledged the improvements made in the service since the new registered manager had started. A staff member told us, “I feel more supported in the last 2 weeks than I have done in the last 2 years.” Another staff member told us, “I really enjoy working here, it’s not toxic.”

Staff described workload pressures making it difficult for them to provide person-centred care. We gave feedback to the provider regarding staffing levels and asked them to re-evaluate