Westcott House Nursing 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 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 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.

People and their relatives told us they were treated with kindness, compassion and respect on the whole. Whilst we observed staff acting in a kind and respectful way, this was not always person-centred.

Comments we received from people and their relatives included, “I’m very happy with everything. Staff are kind.”, “Mostly, they are kind and caring”, “She seems very happy, which I can see, for she lights up whenever staff enter the room” and “I really do think they are [kind], not just for my mother, but everyone.”

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 and their relatives told us staff treated them as individuals and respected their preferences. One person told us, “They will do anything for you.” A relative commented, “Once a jumper I bought shrunk badly [and] they not only replaced it but allowed him to choose another and he was very happy.”

Staff considered people’s social, cultural and religious needs and care records included relevant information. We saw people were supported to attend events that were important to them, such as to attend church services.

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.

We observed people’s choices were not always respected when they requested to be supported. Where 2 people had requested support, staff were not available to provide this at the time and there was a long wait. The provider told us this was not in line with their expectations and they addressed this before the end of the assessment but further time was required to ensure the changes were embedded in the service.

Feedback from people and their relatives about activities was mixed, with some complimenting the number of activities available and others telling us the quality of recent activities had reduced which meant some people felt bored. One person told us, “There is always something going on, usually it’s to do with a jigsaw.” One relative told us, “Activities worries me slightly, they were really on it (previously).” Another relative said, “The activities have subsequently reduced and are not that good anymore.”

We observed that activities provisions did not always consider whether people were able to engage. For example, where care plans stated that some people wished to take part in certain activities, we found that this was not actively encouraged based on people’s daily records. The provider told us they had already identified this, they had recruited activities staff to improve this area and they shared evidence of activities they had recently organised for people. For example, visits to local garden centres, parks, cafes, seasonal celebrations and music therapy. There was an activities planner, so people were able to choose which activities they liked to attend.

The provider 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.

People and their relatives told us the provider listened to their views and wishes, and staff took the time to get to know people. Whilst we identified areas of improvement in other parts of the assessment, we observed staff generally knew people’s needs and were kind in their approach. One relative told us, “Yes, very kind and respectful.” Another relative said, “They know her and she is always well dressed and tidy.”

Staff told us they had sufficient time to understand people’s needs to be able to quickly respond. One member of staff said, “Everything is in the care plan. I also observe them. If they have any risk I will handle them according to the device. Every day we rotate the shift, so we work in both of the buildings."

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

The majority of feedback we received from staff in relation to how they felt supported was positive but we also received some feedback which stated that there were challenges which the registered manager was in the process of addressing and these required further time to become embedded. Comments included, “I find her very nice, she has the skill to understand the staff. I have spoken to her about [challenges]. She needs time to deal with this” and “I am supported by my team and management. In the morning we have a discussion and we make a plan for the day.”