Wainford House Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

This service scored 36 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans did not fully reflect people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs. A relative said, “Sometimes he looks a bit scruffy. I do sometimes wonder what would happen if we did not go.”

Interactions we observed between people and staff did not always demonstrate staff providing appropriate support. For example, for a person struggling to stand staff were not aware of how to support them effectively as their needs had not been appropriately assessed. Their care plan did not demonstrate that their mobility had deteriorated. The person told us, “I did not want to have an accident, I was scared I would not make it, but we got there in the end. It was upsetting, I am ok now. I couldn’t get out of the chair. I did try.” These shortfalls demonstrated a lack of person‑centred care planning and placed people at risk of avoidable harm, loss of dignity, and emotional distress.

There was no evidence in care plans that people or their relatives had been supported to be involved in discussions about their care and support and important records were not up to date. A relative told us, “It came to light during the review of fire safety that they still had my [family member] down as a first point of contact. Sadly, [family member] has been deceased for over a year, and the management were made aware of this at the time and assured me they would amend their records.”

This meant that care and support had not been developed collaboratively with people and their families.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Referrals to health care professionals were not always made when required. For example, where people had lost weight appropriate support had not been requested from a dietician.

People’s individual needs were not always assessed and mitigated in line with current evidence-based guidance for example use of the malnutrition risk assessment (MUST) tool. For 1 person the MUST tool had not been fully completed. The risk had been recorded as low. The section for unplanned weight loss had not been completed. Records indicated that they had lost 2.51% of their body weight in the past 2 months.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We received mixed view from relatives as to whether they were kept up to date with information about their relative. A relative said, “Staff at the Wainford have kept me and my sister informed on the few occasions that [family member’s] health has deteriorated. Other than that, there has been no other communication unless we have been proactive in contacting staff.” Another relative described how when a person had recently been taken to hospital they had not been updated when the person had returned to the service which had caused them concern.

Posters displayed in the service with the daily activities available were not in a location or format which was easily accessible to people.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints

about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

We asked for records of complaints made to the service in the 6 months prior to our inspection visits. We were provided with a copy of a complaint in August 2025. The complaint had initially been made by a relative to social services. The record contained a summary of the actions taken but did not fully detail the complaint or the actions taken.

The service was not proactive in sharing dates of relative’s meetings. A relative told us, “I have not attended any relative meetings because the dates have never been shared with me. I am usually unaware that they have occurred unless another visiting relative mentions them to me.” Relative meetings enable family members to provide feedback or raise concerns with a service.

Our observations during our inspection visits found that the culture was of staff providing support in a task centred way to people rather than providing support with them. For example, moving people without their consent. Staff serving lunch were overheard to say to each other, “I think they are enjoying their lunch.” They did not engage with people and ask if they were enjoying their meal.

We saw activity boards in communal areas showing that people were involved in activities, and during our inspection visits, we observed activities taking place. However, not everyone was encouraged to take part, and there was limited evidence that activities were tailored to people’s interests or abilities. This may reduce opportunities for meaningful engagement and inclusion, especially for those who need more support to participate. Staff meetings did take place, but there was little evidence to show they were used effectively to improve care and communication.

The provider did not make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People’s care records did not demonstrate that referrals to external healthcare professionals had been made where required. For example, a person had lost 4kgs in weight in one month. Care records did not show any investigation into the weight loss of if a referral had been made to the dietician.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People did not experience discrimination or inequality in the delivery of their care. We received no concerns from people regarding fairness or equity in the care and support they received. However, care plans did not demonstrate that these areas had been fully explored with people’s involvement.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

For some people their end-of-life wishes had been recorded in their care plan. However, for other people there was no record of their wishes with no explanation as to whether these had been explored with them.