Wainford House Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last inspection we rated this key question Inadequate. At this inspection the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s needs were assessed and care plans contained information about their health, communication, mobility, personal care, nutrition and support needs. Some care plans also reflected people’s life histories, relationships and preferences.

However, care records were not always accurate or consistent. We found conflicting information about people’s mobility, continence, falls and pressure-area risks, and the level of staff support they required. This increasedrisks of people receiving inappropriate or unsafe care, due to the shortfalls in clear and reliable information to provide people with consistent and effective care that met their current needs.

The provider could not consistently demonstrate that people’s care and treatment was delivered in line with their assessed needs and professional guidance.

Daily records showed staff supported people with their individual care needs, and healthcare professionals were involved when people’s needs changed. However, records did not consistently show that care was delivered in line with people’s care plans and professional guidance.

For example, one person required a Level 6 soft-textured diet and support to reduce their risk of choking. Records did not consistently show that food was prepared to the required texture or that guidance about positioning, pace and supervision when eating was followed. The same person had a daily fluid target of 1500 ml. Although individual drinks were recorded, records did not always show their total daily intake, whether their target had been achieved or what action was taken when intake was low.

These recording gaps limited assurance that people received care in line with their assessed needs and professional guidance. This increased the risk that shortfalls in nutrition, hydration or swallowing support would not be identified and addressed promptly.

The service worked effectively with GPs, district nurses and other healthcare professionals. Records showed staff sought professional advice when people’s health needs changed and healthcare professionals regularly reviewed people’s needs. This helped ensure people received timely and coordinated healthcare alongside their day-to-day care. A healthcare professional we spoke with was positive about their relationship with the service. This provided further evidence that staff worked collaboratively with external healthcare professionals to support people’s health and wellbeing.

People and relatives described support to maintain people’s health and wellbeing and prevent health problems. One relative gave an example of a prompt response to a change in health: “If [family member’s] chest is wheezy or similar, a doctor issues a prescription, and the staff handle it immediately.” Another described support to prevent pressure damage: “[Family member] is obviously being turned in [their] bed to prevent bed sores.” This feedback indicated that people received support to manage changing health needs and reduce the risk of preventable ill health.

Daily records showed staff supported people with their personal care, continence, mobility and other day-to-day needs. Healthcare professionals were involved when people’s needs changed. However, gaps in records and missing information did not always clearly demonstrate that staff consistently followed people’s care plans and advice from healthcare professionals. This meant the provider could not always demonstrate that people received care in line with their assessed needs and professional guidance.

The manager used governance reports to monitor areas of people’s care, including food and fluid intake, falls and care planning. However, records did not always demonstrate that identified concerns were followed up, actions were completed or their effectiveness was reviewed.

For example, the September 2026 ‘fluid governance report’ identified people whose intake was below their individual targets and required follow-up. However, their records were insufficient to demonstrate what action had been taken in response, including whether care plans had been reviewed or healthcare advice sought where required. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that identified risks were consistently acted on or that actions taken had improved outcomes for people.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support, and people and relatives confirmed this usually happened. Care records included decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions where these were required.

However, records relating to consent and mental capacity were not always accurate or sufficiently detailed. For example, one person’s consent record contained another person’s name. Mental capacity assessments did not always clearly demonstrate how the person’s ability to make a specific decision had been considered, and best-interest records did not always show who had been consulted or how the decision had been reached.

These recording shortfalls meant the provider could not consistently demonstrate that decisions had been made in accordance with people’s rights, wishes and preferences, or that relevant people had been appropriately involved. However, we found no evidence that people had received care without their consent.