Wainford House Residential Care 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 35 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Some relatives told us that staff treated their family member well. A relative said about staff, “They genuinely appear to care for the residents and treat them like their own family members.” However, other relatives provided mixed feedback, with a relative saying, “Some care staff just walk past and do not engage, some are staff are attentive, some are not.”

Staff were able to explain how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. However, we did not witness this on our inspection visits. We witnessed staff walking past a person using the toilet with the door wide open. The door was open as the lighting had been turned off due to electrical work. Individual staff did not show concern for the person’s privacy and dignity. Neither had the wider organisation considered the impact of no lighting in some areas of the service and put appropriate measure in place.

We observed a workman carrying out fire safety work in the corridor. They were working directly outside of the room where a person was cared for in bed and their bedroom door was wide open. This not only allowed the workman to be able to observe the person in bed but also allowed dust and fumes to enter the bedroom. This compromised the person’s privacy and dignity.

We also observed people struggling to eat in the communal areas, spilling food down their clothing. This was not dignified.

The provider 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.

A relative told us, “It would have been nice if [relative] had received more personal contact and stimulation when they first arrived.”

Care plans did not always reflect people’s individual choices and preferences, and some information was contradictory. For example, for 1 person a part of their care plan recorded they belonged to the New Fellowship Church but another part of their care plan stated they were Church of England. This may mean they may not get the spiritual support they preferred. People’s individual food preferences were not always recorded to enable staff to offer them food according to their preferences.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

A relative said, “They keep [relative] occupied, helps handy man with painting and repaired the bird table.” However, other relatives described how the service struggled to keep people living with dementia engaged with activities. One said, “Residents appear to be left on their own lots, lack of stimulation and activities. We were told prior to [relative] moving in about days out and activities but this was not observed.” We are aware that the activities lead co-ordinator left shortly after our inspection visit and the service has employed a new activities co-ordinator.

A relative told us their family member moved rooms without any consultation with them. They told us they only found out about the room move when they visited and went to their original room and were told by a cleaner the person had moved. The relative had not been involved in the decision making process.

Daily records for a person cared for in bed did not demonstrate that staff had spent time with them other than to carry out routine care tasks.

Care plans did not always include details of people’s day-to-day needs and preferences (routines etc), wants and wishes. There was not always information about people’s hobbies, interests and important relationships in care plans.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

A relative said, “Glad [relative] does not need extra help. Have observed people sobbing and staff just walk past them. We have spoken with residents but seemed we were the only ones. Some care staff just walk past and do not engage. Some care staff are attentive, some are not.” During our inspection visits we observed staff did not promptly respond to people’s immediate needs such as requests to visit the toilet. We also observed that call bells took a long time to be answered by staff, on 1 occasion we prompted staff to respond to a call bell. We spoke with the management team who acknowledged some failings and told us they would address our concerns.

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 morale in the service was low as a result of inconsistent management and leadership. A member of staff told us, “I was treated unfairly.” We were aware that several care staff have left the service since our inspection visits. However, other care staff described the management team as approachable. A member of care staff said, “Yes, they are good supportive and approachable whenever I need help on work.”

The provider had appointed a new manager who was going to register with CQC. The appointment of a new manager was an opportunity for changes and improvements to be made and embedded into practice.