Wray Park Care 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered- amend as required service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.
 

This service scored 50 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Leaders and staff referred to supporting people with their meals as ‘feeding’ them. This phrase was also used in care notes and meeting minutes. Mealtimes are important social events. Using the term ‘feeding’ creates a culture of disrespect and institutionalisation. In addition, the registered manager told us that 1 person living with dementia frequently said they wanted to go home. The registered manager told us staff distracted the person and “They [staff] tell her they will speak with her family about her going home and by the time they suggest that she has forgotten and moved on.” People with dementia deserve compassionate care. Responding in this way can sometimes feel dismissive of their very real, current emotions.

We found instances where people were not always treated with respect and dignity. We noted in the laundry room that people’s white clothes had been placed in the washing machine with bright coloured clothes. As such all light washing looked grey. Clothes are part of a person’s identity. Wearing discoloured clothing can lead to a loss of self-esteem and comfort for the person.

However, we did see some kind interactions between staff and people and visitors were warmly welcomed. Staff complimented people on their appearance and there was an overall sense that positive relationships had formed between staff and some people. One person told us, “It’s very good here. The staff are really nice and very helpful.” Other comments fed back to the service included, “Lovely feeling from the moment you walk in. Staff are courteous and always smiling. A lovely family feel” and “Staff are kind and considerate. I am always made to feel welcome every time I visit.”

An external professional told us, “The staff are friendly, approachable, caring and extremely helpful at all times to all visitors.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We found people cared for in bed had very little social interaction or activity with staff aside from personal care and mealtimes. For example, we saw from care notes for 1 person over a 14-day period, there were only 6 recorded activities recorded and this was that the television had been turned on. For another person over the same period, the activity referenced putting the radio or television on.

We observed the morning of the inspection there was no activity taking place. The registered manager told us the activity staff member only worked at the home 2.5 days of the week. One relative told us, “A few say they get bored.”

However, other people told us they benefited from a range of activities. One person told us, “There are quizzes, exercise sessions and bingo. We go out in the minibus shopping or to the garden centre.” A relative told us, “Usually in the afternoon they regularly have quite a few things on. Mum has been to the cinema, but not all are able to do that. They do quizzes, they do a load of exercises. They give them word search books.”

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.

People did not always experience comfort in their surroundings. The lounge was poorly set out with all the chairs set around the walls of the room without any space in between. This did not give people space from the person sat next to them. There was also no space for people’s relatives and visitors to sit next to them. Tables were in front of most people meaning people who were able to, were not able to stand and mobilise without asking staff for assistance.

During lunch people were not offered any condiments and those people on a modified diet such as pureed food were not given an option of different meals.

However, we observed other people were offered a choice of meal on the day. We also observed some people get up independently when they wanted to use the bathroom. One person told us, “I am independent and they let me be. I shower myself and I can dress myself. I like that they let me do things myself.”
 

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 found robust systems were not in place in place to ensure that people cared for in bed had their immediate needs met. There were people in bed on 3 floors who were unable to call for assistance if needed. Whilst there were sensor beams in place in their rooms; these would only alert staff from the person moving their arms or legs in front of the sensor.

However, we saw other people received timely support when they required immediate assistance. During the inspection, we observed the registered manager supporting a person into a chair. They responded to their immediate well-being by offering them a glass of water when they said they were not feeling well. Comments from people included, “In the heat, they provided us with loads of drinks, and they had fans on” and “Great respect for the staff. They work really hard. They are always there (if you need them).”

An external professional told us, “They also encourage [people] who know each other to sit together. I have observed married couples sitting together in the lounge, as well as staff regularly checking on [people] and accommodating various special requests of families for loved ones at the care home.”

The provider did not always care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We observed the ‘staff room’ where staff took their breaks, was a room also used as the hairdressing salon for people. The staff room was not a comfortable space. It was dirty, untidy, poorly maintained and was being used to store cleaning products, vases and hair dressing products. Having a comfortable place to rest reduces burnout, improves overall job satisfaction, and helps staff have a more comfortable break. There were also staff that lived in accommodation at the service. Their communal kitchen and bathroom were poorly maintained, poorly equipped and not clean. We were told after the inspection that the staff accommodation was being addressed.

However, staff did feedback that they felt very supported by the leadership team. Comments included, “[Feel supported] from supervisor to manager, never lacked support” and “Manager and director always support me.”