White Rose House

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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 always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

We observed some kind, discreet and respectful interactions between staff and people living at the service, but staff did not always fully consider people’s privacy and dignity. For example, we saw a person living with dementia walking through the lounge. As the person leaned into their walking aid their jumper fell forward fully revealing their breasts and clearly showing they were not wearing underwear. We mentioned this to staff but when we returned several hours later, we saw the person had not been supported to maintain their dignity. On another occasion staff brought the telephone to a person in the lounge to speak with their spouse. The phone had been switched to speakerphone which meant everyone in the lounge could hear the caller who was clearly very upset. Staff said the person needed to use speakerphone because of hearing issues but had not considered taking them to a private area to take the call.

Most people we spoke with were complimentary of the caring approach of staff. One relative told us, “The staff are lovely and friendly and so good with [person]. They have brought [them] out of [themselves]. [Person] is definitely clean and tidy and has [their] haircut.” Another relative said, “They are really lovely and kind and caring and make sure [person is] alright. They can calm [them] down.” A third relative told us they felt they had “Got their [relative] back” due to the care they received. However, another relative told us that member of staff had caused upset by telephoning a family member to tell them their loved one was displaying behaviour that was challenging staff and using language that was not respectful of the person. The management team assured us they would address this issue without delay.

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.

Although some person-centred detail had been recorded in some people’s ‘Who I am’ documents, this was not consistent and care plans lacked evidence of people’s personalities and individuality. One person told us their relative was ‘confirmed CofE [Church of England]’ but was unsure if they were supported to attend religious services held in the service.

The registered manager told us they were aware that this was an area that needed to be improved on.

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

Some people told us they were involved in making decisions and choices, but others felt the care they received did not always meet with their preferences. We saw staff supporting people to make choices at mealtimes, but this did not always extend to care intervention. For example, one person said, “I’d like a shower every day, but I get one every 4 days.” Another person told us about when they were enjoying their favourite television programme in their room early one evening, a member of staff entered the room, turned the television off and put them to bed. The person did not feel they should object to this even though they were enjoying the programme and not wanting to go to bed. Another person told us, “I feel they want to help me, but I feel I need encouraging to do what I can for myself.”

Although staff appeared to be aware of people’s preferences and abilities, care plans sometimes lacked information about people’s strengths and did not direct staff on how to encourage and support people’s independence.

People living on the residential unit enjoyed activity provision. One person said, “We played volleyball with a balloon, it was fun and a good laugh. I have no complaints, everybody enjoyed it. There is a party this afternoon. There is an activities board. Families are invited this evening. We made some decorations for Diwali. There’s all sorts going on.”

However, there was little engagement with people on the dementia care unit. Staff, although present in the room, spent time making notes on their hand-held devices rather than engaging with people. During the afternoon a Paddington Bear film was put on for people to watch although several people were seated where they could not see the television. When we asked people if they had chosen this one person said, “No, it’s a children’s film.”

One person felt their relative was benefiting from engagement. They said, “[Person is] more stimulated here. [Person] walks round and is generally doing more.”

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

Staff did not always take immediate action to support people. One example of this was when we had pointed out that a person’s dignity was compromised because their clothing was ill fitting and no support had been provided to remedy this when we checked several hours later. Another example was when a person on the corridor was in a confused and distressed state and shouting out. We spoke to the person because no staff were responding to them. Whilst speaking to then, the person’s trousers fell down. We called out for staff help but 1 staff member looked at us and walked away. Another staff member did come to support after we called out again.

Staff did appear to respond to the call system. One person told us, “They come quick when I buzz.”

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

The Nominated Individual [NI] for the service told us that they were looking to introduce wellbeing checks for staff. This provided good examples of how they were going to do this in the future. We spoke with 4 members of staff who, although could not provide specific examples of how their wellbeing was supported by the organisation, all expressed that they were happy with their working environment. They said, “This is a great place to work. I know that if I have a problem, I can bring it to the [registered] manager, and it would be dealt with” and “I enjoy coming to work. It is a really good staff team, and we all support each other.” All said they were happy with their working patterns.

Staff questionnaires were not regularly implemented but there were plans in place to embed this into the team culture.

Staff meetings were held every quarter and minutes were recorded. Staff signed to say they had read the minutes if they were not in attendance.

There was a poster displayed informing staff about accessing ‘Freedom to Speak up Guardians.’