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 inspection we rated this key question Inadequate. At this inspection the rating has changed to 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.

People were positive about the care provided. One person told us, “Staff are very nice… they knock, say good morning and always speak nicely.” Another person said, “I like it because the people here are kind to me.”

Relatives were complimentary about the care provided and the staff approach. One relative said. “They treat all the residents with kindness and respect.” Another relative told us, “They treat their residents with dignity and care, very empathic, helpful and kind towards me.”

People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. We observed staff providing care in an unhurried and reassuring way, supporting people at their own pace. Staff respected people’s choices, including when they declined support or food, and sought consent before providing care.

Relatives spoke positively about staff and described them as caring, patient and approachable. They told us staff understood people’s individual preferences and routines, explained the support they provided and took time to spend with people. One relative described staff sitting and talking with their family member, providing companionship as well as practical support. This helped people feel valued and supported and demonstrated that interactions were not solely focused on completing care tasks.

Care plans included information about people’s preferred names, communication needs, interests, routines, personal histories and important relationships. For example, one person’s care plan described using short sentences and verbal prompts to support their understanding and involvement. People’s bedrooms were personalised to reflect their individual interests.

Relatives told us staff knew people well and understood their likes, dislikes and routines. However, people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, cultural needs and other aspects of their individual identity were not always fully reflected in care records. Some management walkaround, staffing allocation and handover records used terms such as “bedbound”, which focused on people’s limitations rather than their abilities and individual support needs. This meant records did not always promote a consistently strengths-based and person-centred approach to supporting people.

People were supported to make choices about their daily lives and maintain their independence. One person said, “It is up to me what time I am up and go to bed.” Another commented, “I am capable of doing things myself, would rather do it myself.” A third person told us, “I have all my meals in my room, that is my choice.”

Staff respected people’s decisions about meals, drinks, personal care and daily routines, giving them time to make or change their choices.

Records showed support was adapted to people’s preferences. For example, meals were kept and offered later when people were asleep or did not want to eat at the usual time. Care plans guided staff to encourage people to complete personal care tasks independently and provide help only where needed. A relative told us their family member could choose whether to have company or time alone. This helped people retain control over their daily lives and remain as independent as possible.

Staff were attentive and responsive to people’s needs. We observed staff were visible and available throughout the home and responded when people required assistance. People and relatives spoke positively about how staff responded to requests for support, including answering any call bells.

Records showed staff adapted their support when people’s needs or routines changed, including providing assistance during the night. Relatives also gave examples of staff responding promptly to changes in people’s health. This meant people received support when they needed it and could be confident staff would recognise and respond to changes in their needs.

Staff spoke positively about improvements in morale, communication and working arrangements since the last inspection. They told us management support had increased and regular staff meetings provided opportunities to communicate and share information. The manager was visible and accessible to staff, which we observed during the assessment.

Staff had access to training and support and were able to identify areas for further development, including supporting people living with dementia and end-of-life care. Further development in these areas would help ensure staff had the knowledge and skills to respond effectively to people’s changing and more complex needs.