Wharfdale Extra Care Scheme

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

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, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff were observed engaging in kind and caring interactions with people being supported. Staff were observed greeting people and taking an interest in what people were doing. Staff used humour and active listening skills to engage with people well.

Overall, people told us the staff were caring and compassionate. A person explained how they had been supported by staff, during what had been an emotionally challenging period of their life. A further person told us, “The staff are always very happy and they care.” A relative said, “The staff are lovely, they go above and beyond for [relative].” However, some people told us it was dependent on the carer and how some staff were “Reluctant to get stuck in” and did not always have a good understanding of people’s routines and preferences.

Staff told us they had no concerns about their fellow staff members not being caring. A staff member said, “Everyone here has the right values and they genuinely care.”

Professionals who completed visits to the service, told us they were treated with respect. Every professional or stakeholder told us they had a good, caring, relationship with the service.

The service 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.

People’s care plans did not always reflect the level of detail which had been obtained in the local authority needs assessments. Some data from these needs assessments including people’s previous jobs, where they used to live, some of the most influential moments in their life, family information and previous hobbies and interests, were not always recorded which was a missed opportunity.

People’s goals and aspirations were not clearly identified. However, it was evident people were encouraged to maintain their independence and supported to achieve their ambitions.

Most people felt staff treated them as an individual. A person told us how staff supported them with everyday tasks when required but also offered encouragement and motivated them to complete tasks independently. A person told us, “Yes, I am very much in control of what I do, I go to [local supermarket] daily and get my newspaper.” The same person had a part-time job at a local supermarket which they attended independently. Another person said staff knew about their interests and hobbies and would discuss these with them regularly.

Professionals and stakeholders felt people were treated as individuals. A professional noted how staff took time out of their busy schedules to converse with people who were entering or exiting the location and ensured they were present and engaged whilst doing so. A further professional said, “Wharfdale clearly adopts a person-centred approach. Staff support individuals to maintain independence while respecting their preferences, routines, and interests. This is reflected in how individuals are encouraged to personalise their living spaces and engage in meaningful activities, such as joining social groups and going on outings.”

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 have choice and control over their own support and made decisions regarding this. A person told us they preferred to lie in until mid-morning and staff respected this.

People had access to their friends and family, and the service encouraged people to develop and maintain relationships. We observed relatives and friends visiting people and observed friendly interactions between fellow residents.

People had access to activities and the local community which promoted and supported their independence, health and wellbeing. People told us they accessed the local supermarket, the gym, day centres and charity events. A person had continued to work one day at work, since they had moved to the service.

The service supported people to attend appointments when required.

Staff told us how they supported people in their own homes and in the community. They explained how they encouraged people to remain independent whilst completing such tasks, including trying to encourage and motivate them to get involved. Staff explained how they always provided people with choices, including what clothes they would want to wear, whether they wanted to support them with cleaning and what food they would like to purchase.

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

Staff were alert to people’s needs and quickly recognised when people needed urgent help or support. Staff provided us with examples of how they have supported people who have required immediate support. A staff member provided an example, in which they had supported a person who appeared ‘grey.’ They explained how they responded quickly to the call bell, walked them slowly back to bed, rang the paramedics and stayed with them until they arrived.

People told us staff responded quickly when this was needed. A person told us how they had an accident a few months prior and how staff had been there almost immediately after them using the call bell. Another person reinforced this sentiment by explaining how they had fallen and how staff had responded quickly and then in line with their training to safely support them back to their seat.

However, more work was required by staff and leaders to ensure they were aware of the person’s immediate needs. Staff required more detailed care plans to know how to respond effectively to people’s immediate needs which respected their wishes, needs and preferences.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

The provider offered rewards, benefits and support for staff. There was an employee assistance programme in place, which offered a stress helpline, structured telephone counselling, medical information, tax advice and legal advice, amongst other support to staff members. There was a continuity of service award for staff who had worked at the organisation for more than 10 years.

Staff told us they were supported and had opportunities to meet with leaders to discuss their work and wellbeing. Staff told us they felt safe at work, and the service valued them, the workload was manageable and they felt listened to by the management. A staff member said, “This is the best job I have ever had; I get more respect and praise here than in my last job.”

Despite the provider having a lone worker policy, we did not see evidence of any lone worker risk assessments being completed.