The New Wycliffe 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 Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (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 did not ensure people were consistently treated with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respected their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed people’s mealtime experience and found this was not a positive one. People’s dignity and respect was compromised due to not enough staff being available to support them. For example, we observed staff assisting people to eat, but due to other people requiring support, they were required to leave people they were assisting to support others. This was disrespectful.

The quality of staff engagement with people during lunchtime was mixed. Whilst we saw some staff were kind, caring and attentive, we also observed where care staff were task focussed. For example, we observed how staff placed people’s meals in front of them with no communication with the person, such as reminding them what the meal was or asking if they needed any assistance. Several people were either registered blind or living with a sight impairment and this approach of staff demonstrated a lack of care and consideration towards others.

Some people whose first language was English, gave examples of staff speaking in their first language (not English) and how this made them feel uncomfortable. A person said, “When staff are speaking their own language in front of me, it makes me feel isolated.”

We also received positive comments about the staff’s caring approach. A relative said, “There are some lovely carers, so good and gentle, they give [relation] a hug and a kiss.” Another relative said, “I'm generally quite happy with the care, the girls [staff] are fantastic.”

External professionals told us their professional clinical recommendations were not always implemented. This showed a lack of professional respect.

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. However, we identified some gaps in people’s experiences of being treated as individuals, this was an ongoing area of improvement the provider was working on.

People’s care plans detailed important information about their history, routines, preferences including information about any protected characterisers. This information supported staff to provide individual and personalised care. People’s daily care records detailed the care provided; records confirmed people were supported overall, in line with their care plan. However, we noted a person’s care plan detailed that it was important to the person to wear their perfume daily. We reviewed this person’s daily records for a 7 day period and there was no reference to them wearing of perfume.

Feedback from people and relatives was mixed. Concerns were raised about the high use of agency staff and how new staff that had limited awareness of people’s individual care needs, routines and preferences. We were aware that the use of agency staff had recently reduced as the staff team was stabilising, as new permanent staff were being recruited. We were also aware improvements had been made and were ongoing, in the guidance provided for staff to support them to provide good care based on people’s current needs.

A person spoke positively about how they had been supported the morning of the inspection with a bath. They said, “The carer gave me a lovely bath and dressed me nicely this morning. It was very nice, because I went up and down (the corridor) in my dressing room not a towel.” This comment however raised some concerns, suggesting they had not always experienced this level of good care.

People and relatives told us they had seen improvements since the current manger had been in position. A relative said, “Since the new manager has been in post they've [staff] definitely pulled their socks up, and now [relation] is bathed regularly and has their hair done weekly.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Whilst we observed some good examples of the promotion of independence, choice and control, it was also an area that required continued improvement.

People’s care plans included guidance for staff of the importance of promoting independence and decision making as fully as possible. Care plans were outcome based. However, at the time of the inspection, improvements were ongoing in relation to care plans being updated to correctly reflect people’s current care needs, preferences and routines.

Independence was promoted with the use of adapted cutlery and crockery to enable people to eat and drink as independently as possible. Assistive technology was used such as sensor equipment for people who had been assessed as a falls risk. This technology enabled people to maintain their independence whilst reducing the level of falls risk.

A visiting hairdresser was present during the inspection, and people received an opportunity to have their hair washed and styled.

People received visitors from friends and family without restrictions.

The provider was making improvements to how they listened to and understood 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.

People did not consistently receive a positive response from staff, to requests of assistance to meet their immediate needs. A relative told us about their relation’s health conditions that caused discomfort meant they required frequent support to use the toilet. They said, “The care that is provided is good. There are just not enough carers. [Relation] has to wait a long time to go to the toilet. It might be half an hour or longer if it's lunchtime.” We observed this person request assistance to go to the toilet; they told the staff member they were feeling uncomfortable and needed cream applied to their skin. A staff member responded and informed the person they would be 5 minutes. However, it was at least 20 minutes before a staff member came to assist. Another person told us, “Sometimes it's a long time before they [staff] come to answer the call bell, I end up calling out for help as well.”

During our observation of people’s mealtime experience people were observed to sit around waiting a longtime between courses. For example, we observed people were assisted into the dining room at 12.30pm, meals were served at 1pm and dessert was served at 1.45pm. We observed people not eating food placed in front of them, and we had to bring this to the attention of staff on several occasions to support people, as staff had not identified this.

Resident meetings had recently been reintroduced. We reviewed these meeting records that confirmed people were empowered to share what was important to them. Records confirmed the provider had listened and had taken actions to make improvements.

Plans were in place to enable people and their relatives and or representatives, to be more involved in reviews, discussions and decisions about care delivery.

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 consistently received training that met people’s care needs. This put people at risk of not receiving personalised care. As recorded in the Safe key question of this report, we identified concerns with staffing levels, and this also impacted staff’s ability to provide personalised care.

Concerns were identified in relation to staff support and wellbeing. Staff raised concerns about changes made to the location of staff room. We observed how the staff room had been positioned outside the staff toilet, this was not a pleasant or ideal place. The staff rota showed how some staff worked a maximum of 14.5 hours a day, this was therefore an important room to enable staff to take breaks, however, it was not a conducive environment for them to rest in. Whilst the manager told us this was a temporary measure, staff had not been provided with any information about timescales or alternative plans.

The provider’s recruitment procedures confirmed staff were asked to disclose any health and wellbeing concerns or needs that required any work related reasonable adjustments. Staff supervision and appraisals records showed this was a recent area of improvement. Staff were receiving opportunities to discuss their work, training and development needs.

Staff told us the management team supported their wellbeing by being supportive during times of personal needs such as changing a shift due to an emergency.

Staff had access to the provider’s employee assistive programme. The manager told us how they supported staff and contributed the improvements in ways of working and communication as being a factor in the reduction of staff sickness.

The provider had a staff employee of the month award that recognised and celebrated the contribution of named staff members.