Weaver 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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People were generally treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Some people and relatives said staff could, at times, be task focused and did not always spend enough time talking with people. One relative told us they regularly observed staff speaking among themselves rather than engaging with people.

However, people also described staff as “nice” and “funny”, and relatives told us staff were caring and sensitive to people’s needs. We observed warm and respectful interactions. People and staff laughed and joked together, and staff showed interest in people’s lives, relationships and events that were important to them. For 1 person this included being able to name their soft toys and share in songs and rhymes that they knew.

Staff spoke about people in a caring manner. One staff member told us, “It’s important to get to know people. Know what they like and what approach they might best respond to. Our job is always to be patient and understanding.”

An external professional told us, “[Name] is spoken to in a pleasant manner and all of their needs and wishes are met.”

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 treated as individuals and supported to pursue interests and activities that were meaningful to them. Some people enjoyed accessing the community with staff, while others travelled independently to activities they had chosen.

Staff understood people’s individual needs and identified equipment and support that helped them remain safe and independent while doing the things they valued.

People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. They welcomed visitors, spent time with relatives and stayed with family when they wished. People also kept in touch with friends through day services and social activities, including at regular clubs, colleges and discos.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported to develop their independence and have choice and control over their daily lives. Staff encouraged people to build everyday skills such as independent travel, attending college and moving to more independent living.

People chose how much support they wanted with everyday tasks. Some prepared meals, cleaned their rooms, shopped independently and were supported to manage their money using strategies that worked for them. Staff gave examples of people successfully moving on from the service to live with greater independence.

However, care plans did not always clearly record people’s goals or detail how staff should support them to achieve these. The manager had identified this and planned to improve care records.

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.

Staff did not always respond effectively to people’s immediate needs. We observed 1 person tell staff they had a headache, but staff did not take appropriate action to relieve their discomfort. When we raised this with the manager, they took action to improve staff practice and reduce the risk of this happening again.

Relatives also described occasions when people’s immediate wishes were not met because individual staff were unable to provide the support requested.

However, we also observed staff responding sensitively to people and checking their wellbeing. Staff understood what could increase people’s anxiety and knew how to provide reassurance. Staff also recognised when people wanted interaction and spent time talking with them, helping people feel reassured and supported.

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

Staff had not always felt well supported. Changes in management had affected staff confidence, and some staff told us they had not previously felt listened to when they raised concerns. One staff member described how a closed culture had previously been allowed to develop. Another staff member told us, “It feels like we have been through a trauma. Things need to be done differently in future. It will take time.”

However, staff described improvements under the new manager. Some told us concerns they had raised were addressed promptly, and staff felt able to request support and flexible working to maintain their work-life balance.

The manager and operations manager recognised the impact recent changes had on staff and were taking action to improve staff wellbeing and engagement. This included introducing ‘Wellbeing Wednesdays’ to give staff opportunities to speak openly. The manager promoted an open-door approach and recognised that building staff trust would take time.