Weston Favell Houses

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 70 (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.

People were treated with kindness, compassion, and dignity. People spoke positively about the care and support they received and expressed a high level of satisfaction. A person told us, “ I get on well with everyone. It’s great living here. I get to live my own life.” Another person told us it was, “Going well.” and the service was, “helping me so much.”

Relatives spoke highly of the service. A relative told us, “Staff are always kind and caring I cannot praise them enough’.” Another relative told us staff were, “Definitely kind and caring.” We were also told by another relative, “I would say that they treat [relative] with dignity and respect.”

We saw lots of interaction between staff and people using the service. Staff communicated effectively with people. Staff told us how they treated people with respect. A staff member said, “This is a home where residents, staff, families, and professionals are all treated with genuine respect and kindness. That’s why the relationships here are so strong.”

The interactions that we observed during our assessment reflected the feedback we received from people and their relatives.

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.

People and their relatives told us they were treated as individuals. A relative told us, “They take time to support [relative] well and understand [their] needs.” Another relative told us, “[Relative] is treated as an individual. [Relative] gets to do lots of activities that [they] enjoy.” A final relative told us, “They treat [relative] as they would like to be treated themselves, they laugh, joke and make the home a really comfortable environment.’

People were able to personalise their rooms according to their preferences. A relative told us, “[Relative has their own room. I think they picked the colour. There are pictures on the wall.” Another relative told us, “Staff are respectful of [relatives] personal space and room.”

We found people’s personal, cultural, social, and religious needs were assessed by the service. For example, a person’s religious needs were recorded in their care plan, including what was important to them, what their strengths were, and what staff support was required. People with specific religious dietary needs are supported in line with their preferences, and there was guidance available for staff. People were supported to attend religious services.

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

People and their relatives told us they were supported to have choice and control. We found people were being supported to live as independently as possible with support from the multi-disciplinary team (MDT). A person told us, “I go to the gym. Staff come with me, but I get to spend time on my own. Soon I’m hoping to start going on the bus on my own.”

People were supported to take part in activities that were important to them. For example, bowling, going to the cinema, meals out, quiz nights, and trips to the coffee shop. Some people accessed the community and activities independently or with minimal support from staff. For example, a person told us how they attended a local community-based education service called ‘Workbridge’ unsupported each week.

We observed a quiz taking place at the service, involving people and all staff on shift. There were regular opportunities for activities within the service and at other services operated by the provider. For example, there was annual events organised that people told us they enjoyed, including ‘Oakfest’ and St Patrick’s Day that involved live music, games, and food.

People’s right to privacy and a personal life was respected by the staff team. People were supported to develop independent living skills, for example a person told us they felt living at the service had helped them develop their independent living skills, and they had taken ownership of cleaning their bedroom.

The provider did not always provide staff with adequate guidance that enabled them to respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress.

We observed staff were attentive to people and their needs during our assessment. People and relatives told us they felt their views and wishes were listened to by staff. A relative told us, “If [relative] is demonstrating behaviours of concern they [staff] listen with patience and respect.” We found staff knew the people they were supporting well, and they were able to anticipate their needs.

There were behaviour care plans and positive behaviour support guidance for people experiencing emotional distress that had specialist multi-disciplinary team (MDT) input from a clinical psychologist. However, we found the behaviour care plans were dated and although they had been regularly reviewed, current risks, desired outcomes and interventions were not easily identifiable. This meant we could not be assured staff always followed the most up to date guidance when people were anxious or distressed.

The provider told during the assessment the action they had taken to address these findings and assured us this work had commenced.

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

The provider had an employee assistance program (EAP) to provide staff with well-being assistance if required.

Staff were encouraged to nominate colleagues for their employee of the month scheme, and the winner was awarded a trophy and voucher. The provider recognised staff by sharing thank you cards and a voucher and we were told staff were also recognised for their length of service.

There were opportunities for staff to take part in well-being activities, for example, a pottery painting session took place to promote staff mindfulness. The provider had a charitable foundation that staff were able to apply for grant money from for charitable causes.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisals, and staff told us the provider’s approach to well-being had positively impacted on their length of service. A staff member told us, “Even when something happens outside of work they are there for you – they go over and above to support you – they are like a family.”