Whitgift 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 70 (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, compassion and dignity and supported them in a respectful manner. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People consistently described staff as caring and attentive. One person told us, “All the staff are extremely friendly… they are respectful but friendly,” while another said, “The staff are absolutely marvellous… they have taken me under their wing”.

Observations confirmed staff demonstrated respectful practice. Staff were seen knocking before entering rooms, asking permission and addressing people by name. Interactions were kind, with staff showing patience and engaging in positive, warm exchanges such as supporting people to move at their own pace or laughing and dancing with them.

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.

Care records were detailed and personalised, clearly outlining people’s communication needs, preferences, life histories and desired outcomes. These included guidance for staff on how to support people’s emotional wellbeing, religious needs and individual risks.

People confirmed staff knew them well and respected their wishes. One person said, “Everyone knows my name… they know I hate certain foods” while another described how staff supported their personal environment by putting family photos in place to make it more homely.

Staff told us they took time to talk with people and understand their histories, acting as advocates for their preferences and rights. Observations also showed staff responding to people in a personalised way, such as locating a person’s preferred cup or adapting care to meet individual dietary needs.

The provider consistently supported people to maintain their independence, choice and control over their lives. Care plans guided staff to seek consent, offer choices and support decision-making.

People told us they were able to make choices about their daily lives. One person said, “I can get out if I want to… I do what I want to do.” Others described choosing meals, activities and how they spent their time.

Observations showed staff encouraged people to eat independently and at their own pace. Support was adapted where needed to promote independence while maintaining safety.

Staff respected people’s preferences and encouraged independence throughout care interactions. Systems were in place to involve people and their relatives in decisions, including regular engagement and feedback opportunities.

The provider did not always ensure people’s immediate needs were responded to in a timely way.

Although people described staff as caring and responsive, feedback highlighted delays in receiving support, particularly during busy periods and at night. One person said, “I don’t wait hours, they know to come back,” while others reported waiting for support, such as assistance with personal care.

People, relatives and staff consistently reported that call bells were not always answered promptly, particularly when staff were supporting people with higher levels of need. This indicated that staffing pressures impacted on the timeliness of care.

Leaders had systems in place to monitor call bell response times and were reviewing this information. Processes were also in place to assess staffing levels in line with people’s needs, and the manager described plans to strengthen these through initiatives such as the ‘resident of the day’ approach. However, these arrangements had not yet resulted in consistent improvements.

Despite these challenges, observations showed staff were respectful and worked hard to respond to people’s needs where possible.

The provider always supported workforce wellbeing and enabled staff to provide care, although staffing pressures impacted their experience.

Staff described a positive and supportive team culture and said they enjoyed their roles. One staff member told us, “We have a good team here and we enjoy our jobs… it’s enjoyable”.

Staff received training and development opportunities and felt confident in their skills to meet people’s needs. Staff described being supported by managers. There was evidence of wellbeing initiatives, including a welfare programme and an open-door management approach to encourage staff to speak up.