Wentworth Court 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff made sure that people receive compassionate support and took the time to get to know them, so they understood people’s care and support needs, wishes and choices. A relative told us, “The care is excellent. [My relative] has come back to life since [they] moved in, [they are] always doing stuff. [They are] happy in the world that [they] live in.” Another relative said, “[Staff] seem to have managed to perform a miracle…We have total confidence in all members of the staff – they seem to be so caring and have incredible patience.” A person who used the service told us, “All the staff are nice. They are very, very pleasant.”

Staff received training in dignity and respect and spoke about the people they supported with genuine care and compassion, demonstrating a shared commitment to providing high quality‑ care. One staff member said, “The residents are just amazing…We do get close to people, we are with people day in and day out. We want the very best for people. I love it when people settle here and they are happy.”

Visiting professionals told us that they saw people being treated with kindness and dignity. One professional said, “Care is delivered in a genuinely caring and compassionate manner.”

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.

Staff were considerate of people’s relevant protected equality characteristics, and people’s communication needs were consistently met to enable them to engage in their care. A family member told us, ““The staff know [my relative] well – they are brilliant… Some of the staff speak [their] own first language which I think helps [my relative].” Another relative told us, “[My relative is] always clean and tidy. [Staff] talk to [my relative] a lot and make eye contact. They knew [my relative] did a lot of winter sports when [they were] younger and helped [my relative] to watch the recent Winter Olympic Games. They seem to be able to understand [my relative].”

People were supported by staff who understood the context of their experiences and used this to meet their needs. One professional said, “In my experience they ensure all staff fully understand the needs of [people] and place importance on all roles within the home as being an opportunity to enrich the lives of [people].” Another professional told us, “The whole team knows [people] extremely well. This familiarity supports continuity of care and helps ensure that individual wishes, and those of families, are understood and respected.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff encouraged people to do things for themselves where they were able. One person told us, “They do help and do ask if you can do your own wash.” A relative said, “The staff empower [my relative] to take part in his care.”

People were offered choices throughout the day, and staff respected these. Inspectors observed staff offering alternatives at mealtimes and people choosing where and who they would eat their lunch with. The chef adapted options to meet people’s preferences and needs, helping ensure people could enjoy food they preferred or could manage safely.

Some people were living with advanced dementia, and staff used their knowledge, training and skills to encourage them to make choices.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Relatives generally spoke positively about the service and told us staff knew their loved ones well. One relative said, “[Staff know my relative] very well and I see the way they interact with other [people], and they know stories about [my relative] they really have extensive knowledge of [my relative]. When we first met, they asked about [their] family and background. They recognise [my relatives] moods and exactly how to deal with [them] and they care.” Another relative said, “[My relative] is so much better at Wentworth Court – [they are] calm: but if [they are] low, then [staff] make time to sit with [my relative]. They help [my relative] to manage [their] own moods.” Another relative said, “[Our relative experienced a change in their mental health] a little while ago, they told us straight away. It…took a while to stabilise – the staff are very understanding and have been very supportive. [Our relatives] care plan was up to date but we added another section to cope with any future episodes.”

We observed staff responding to people when they were in distress or needed support. For example, we saw staff comforting a person when they were distressed. We also staff noticed when a person was not eating their lunch. The staff member reassured the person, spent time with them, changed their food at their request and then spent time to support them to eat. We saw how the staff approach enabled the person to have a positive mealtime experience.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff retention was good and the staff we spoke to told us they felt valued and supported by the management team. One staff member said, “The [staff team] all get on. Hierarchy matters when it has to, but if we were all sat together you wouldn't know who was above who…we all work together. We all work towards the best interests of the people that live here.” Another staff member said, “[The general manager] is amazing. He is not just a manager. He is more than that. You feel part of a family. I have had different managers in the past. I feel I can go to the registered manager or general manager with any problems.”

Staff completed shift reflection forms to rate their day on a regular basis. Whilst these provided mostly positive feedback, we saw there were examples when staff shared concerns and dissatisfaction via this form. In these instances, we saw that management had responded and put measures in place to explore concerns and make the necessary improvements.

People were supported by staff who felt valued by their leaders and their colleagues. The provider had systems to recognise staff performance and was responsive to their individual needs and preferences. For example, they utilised staff reward schemes and a range of other initiatives such as wellbeing sessions, vouchers and a whole paid day of for staff birthdays and 5 and 10 year service payments.