Woodley Hall 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not always treated with dignity and respect. There was a dignity officer in post who showed us a ‘dignity tree’ developed with people using the service. However, this had not been extended to involve staff in promoting dignity within daily practice.

During lunchtime observations, we saw staff standing over people while supporting them to eat, and people were not told what food they were being assisted to eat. We also heard staff referring to people as “good girls” during interactions, which did not promote dignity or demonstrate respectful communication.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy. A relative told us, “The care is very good. She’s always nice and clean. She’s happy in herself and they let us know when the district nurse has been. We are impressed.”

Care plans were not always sufficiently detailed or individualised. For instance, for people with an identified reliance on alcohol, there were no clear support strategies to guide staff in managing this safely. Although care plans frequently referred to promoting people’s independence, they did not include practical steps or guidance for staff on how this should be achieved.

The service did not always promote people’s independence, which meant people did not always have choice, control, or full awareness of their rights in relation to their care, treatment and wellbeing.

People did not have consistent access to meaningful activities. On the ground floor, we observed people left unattended for long periods with no engagement, and no activities were provided on either day of the assessment. On the first floor, bingo sessions took place on both days, but there was little evidence of variety or personalised activity planning.

Younger people using the service did not have access to activities that promoted independence or supported the development of daily living skills to help them move towards a more independent setting.

People were, however, supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.

Staff listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported and responded to their needs in a timely and attentive manner. Call bells were answered without delay, ensuring people’s needs were met promptly.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received, which enabled them to carry out their roles effectively and feel valued within the service. A staff member commented, “I have always felt supported by management and colleagues. Supervision and training are regular and helpful, and my induction was thorough. The leadership team are approachable and open to feedback.”

The registered manager told us they had introduced a staff recognition award to help staff feel valued and appreciated. They said staff were provided with information and links to resources to support them in managing stress and maintain their wellbeing. The registered manager also described having an open-door policy to encourage staff to discuss any issues or concerns with them.