Wyndham Hall 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and their relatives told us staff supported them in a way they wished. They said staff knew them well and understood what mattered to them. We observed some bedrooms were highly personalised, and people spoke positively about the way staff supported their routines, comfort, and emotional wellbeing.

The registered manager was able to share how the service had worked with people and external healthcare professionals to promote people’s independence. We noted people who had previously had long hospital admission prior to moving into the home had made improvements in their mental and physical wellbeing since being admitted. We saw feedback from family members which was positive. One family had commented their relative had regained mobility and dignity after a prolonged and complex hospital admission. The registered manager told us “This case study demonstrates how high quality, person centred care can support recovery even in the most complex mental health presentations. Through safe practice, effective interventions, compassionate relationships, responsive care planning, and strong leadership, the team at Wyndham Hall Care Home enabled [person] to settle, stabilise, and begin to reconnect with the world around them.”

Relatives confirmed their family member received person centred care. Comments included, “They [staff] know [person] needs encouragement and they manage them gently,” “They [staff] listen to us. [person] has dementia and the staff are very good with them, they calm them down and change the subject.”

Relatives told us and we observed people and their family members were respected by staff, and staff showed concern for all family members.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Relatives described good continuity of care, with people being supported by familiar staff who knew them well. Comments included, “We see the same faces [staff] mostly, the nurses are a stable band of staff” and “The staff are good, there’s a couple of regular carers who [person] recognises.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers.

The service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard and ensured people’s communication needs were known and understood. The building had a hearing loop system, operational in all communal areas. A variety of aids to support communication were available to meet individual needs.

People’s records were kept safe and secure, only people who were authorised to read them had access.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives regarding how easy it was to communicate with senior staff and the timeliness of responses to emails sent to the service. Many people provided positive feedback, with comments such as, “When we raise things, they get sorted,” and “Any complaints or queries, they deal with them.”

However, some people and relatives reported less positive experiences, stating communication could be inconsistent. Comments included, “Sometimes the communication from them can be a bit mixed,” “Emails are not replied to or are very slow to receive a response,” and “Not very good communication to us.” We have shared this feedback with the registered manager and the provider, who have been asked to take action to ensure all people and their relatives feel listened to, heard, and communicated with consistently and effectively..

Systems were in place to gather feedback from people, this was through formal surveys, monthly review meetings and general communication with staff. In addition, the provider offered relatives remote access to information about their family member which included but not limited to viewing real-time activities and the ability to send and receive messages from the care team.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People did not experience discrimination or inequality in how their care was delivered and the support they received. There were policies to promote people’s equality and diversity needs. Staff received training on equality, diversity and inclusion.

Systems were in place to ensure staff had enough information to share with external parties in the event of an emergency, for instance, in the event of a fire or unplanned hospital admission.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People experienced equitable outcomes because the service responded promptly and effectively to individual needs, reducing barriers and improving access to care. This was confirmed by evidence we saw and from feedback we received from external healthcare professionals. For instance, we read a discharge letter from a mental health team which praised the staff for the support they had given to a person living at Wyndham Hall Care Home.

People and relatives generally knew how to raise concerns and who to approach if they were unhappy. Most felt comfortable doing so and reported issues were usually addressed. One relative told us, “I would go to head nurse or the manager, they listen to me and take it on board.” However, some relatives did not feel listened to or felt responses from management were defensive or slow, particularly when concerns were raised by email or involved more complex care needs. One relative told us, “The manager is in her office and sometimes speaks and sometimes doesn’t. We talk to Head Office.” We have spoken to the registered manager and provider about this and requested them to review communication practices to ensure timely, clear, and consistent responses for all people and their relatives.

People were 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.

We observed and people and external healthcare professionals told us staff understood how to promote and provide good end of life care.

The registered manager was able to provide many examples of how the staff supported people, they told us [person’s] experience reflected improved wellbeing, dignity, and comfort, alongside positive outcomes for their family.

We saw lots of positive comments from family members of people the service had supported. It was clear end of life care was delivered in a sensitive and responsive manner, with care plans reflecting people’s preferences and ensuring comfort, dignity, and emotional support were maintained.