Wyndham Manor Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us staff provided person centred care and respected their preferences and wishes. A person said, “My care has been excellent, the girls are very good and ask me what I want, I can’t fault them.”

People were supported to personalise their rooms. 1 person’s room was decorated with football memorabilia and posters. They told us, “It’s grand here, it really is.” Another person’s room was filled with soft toys and photos. A 3rd person had a CD player beside their chair and lots of CD’s, they said, “If there is a singer, they come and say, ‘Do you want to go down and see them?’ But I like my own music.”

Staff recognised the importance of family and friends on people’s wellbeing. There were no restrictions on visiting. People could see their friends and family when they wished. A person told us, “My family come when they like.” We observed family and friends taking people out for the day.

Records did not always evidence that care was provided in a way that met people’s needs.

Assessments relating to the risk of malnutrition and choking were not always accurate and advice from the speech and language therapist could not always be located. Several people sometimes displayed distressed behaviours. Information to guide staff on the triggers and actions they should take was not always detailed.

A new handover recording system had been introduced; whilst this proforma included more detailed information, it was not always accurate and not every person was recorded on the prepopulated handover record. In addition, there was no evidence of management oversight. Senior management staff told us this would be addressed.

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers.

We found in general that information was provided to people in a format that met their needs. We identified that access to menus which were accurate and met people’s needs required improvement.

An effective system was not fully in place to enable people and relatives to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support.

We read a letter of complaint dated October 2024. There was no evidence that the complaint had been investigated and a response sent to the complainant. Senior management told us that complaints had not been logged or actioned in line with their complaints policy.

The provider had already identified this shortfall prior to our assessment and introduced a new complaints process. It was not possible to check how effective this process was, since it had just been introduced and was not yet embedded into practice.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People and relatives told us that staff supported people to access health care services which met their needs. A person told us, “They bring in a doctor if I need one.”

Records did not always evidence people experienced positive outcomes.

We identified shortfalls relating to medicines management, MCA assessments, continence care, supporting people who displayed distressed behaviours and nutrition which posed a risk to people’s wellbeing.

The provider had already identified many of the issues we found and had introduced a new electronic care management system which provided tools to help staff document how they ensured people achieved positive outcomes. It was not possible to check how effective this new electronic care management system was. since it had just been introduced and was not yet embedded into practice.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Care plans that we reviewed did not always document people’s preferences in relation to this important area to ensure people’s wishes were known and followed.

The provider had introduced a new electronic care management system which provided tools to help staff document how they supported people to plan for important life changes. It was not possible to check how effective this new electronic care management system was since it had just been introduced and was not yet embedded into practice.