Woodville 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 Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 and relatives were positive about how staff looked after people. Comments included, “The staff are all good to me. They come and check and sit and have a chat when they have time. They are nice people” and “Every time we go in they (staff) are very attentive to all the residents, certainly most of the time we go in they ask, ‘Do you want a cup of tea or a squash?’, and they offer to help [Name] to come to the lounge.”

Staff told us how they respected people wishes and choices and how they wanted to make sure people had positive experiences living at the home. One staff member said, “I love the residents, each one of them. That’s why I do this job.”

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and were observed knocking people’s bedroom doors and waiting to be invited to enter. When staff did not get a response, they opened the bedroom door slightly and asked, “Can I come in?”

Staff spoke with people in a respectful and kind manner. A staff member approached a person seated in their armchair reading a book and said, “[Name] sorry to interrupt are you ready for your lunch?” The person said they were feeling ‘peckish’. The staff member asked where the person would like to sit and on receiving their response offered to carry the person’s handbag for them across the lounge to their seat at the dining room table.

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 told us staff knew their choices and preferences for care and knew what they could do independently and when they needed support. One person said, “Staff do explain what they are doing. They ask me what I want to wear.”

Staff understood people’s individual needs and preferences and tailored their care around their abilities, aspirations and protected characteristics. For example, 1 person told us they had to be supported to move around with a hoist. They explained how staff had moved them several times during the morning using the hoist to transfer them from a wheelchair to a bed or chair so that they were not left sitting in the wheelchair for long periods of time feeling uncomfortable. A staff member told us how a person who was able to mobilise was supported out of the home to walk into the town that was a short distance from the home. The person told how they enjoyed being able to visit places they used to go to on these outside visits.

The provider aimed to promote people’s independence, but equipment failure had impacted on this. People knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Whilst staff aimed to ensure people were supported to be independent, a stair lift had not been operational for a week which affected 2 people’s independence and choice in terms of accessing other areas of the home. The provider told us they would pursue action for this to be repaired or replaced.

Staff knew people well and knew what they could achieve independently to remain safe. One staff member told us, “We are always asking the residents if they are satisfied and is everything ok. If they weren’t happy, I wouldn’t be doing my job.” Staff told us when people were supported with personal care, they encouraged people to wash areas they could reach to help maintain their independence.

Care plans indicated where people could do some tasks independently, for example, some people were able to walk around the home independently and others were supported by staff to go on outside visits to places of interest to them. One staff member told us, “The manager gets the information before a resident comes in and shares it with us. We get to know about the resident’s needs and what we can do to help or what they want to do. Sometimes things change so we change. Like we know the new lady walks around and likes to do that.”

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.

People told us staff were responsive to their needs. One person said, “I press my bell and they come fairly quickly. It can take a while, but they do come.” Another told us how their dentures had become uncomfortable and staff had supported them by accessing a dentist on several occasions in an attempt to make sure their dentures were comfortable. We saw a person was given immediate pain relief for their headache when they had informed staff about this.

Staff explained how they responded to people’s and aimed to respond to call bells as soon as possible. Staff comments included, “Sometimes it’s hard to get to the buzzer when staff are doing laundry and cleaning, but we try our best” and “Every chance, we sit with them (people) and talk about things. We are learning from and about them all the time.”

The provider was still embedding new working arrangements, but they aimed to promote the wellbeing of their staff and the delivery of person-centred care.

During our inspection staff told us how they were adjusting to working for the new provider as there had been changes to how they were used to working. Some of the providers plans, aspirations and policies were still being embedded at the time of our visit.

Although staff worked well together, they did not always feel valued. One staff member told us, “I always felt valued. We got a ‘thank you’, appreciation and I still feel valued by the manager, he is very good, but not by the owner. I don’t think they value any of us.” Another told us, “We can’t do all the cleaning as well as helping the residents. It’s too much. We do our best but it’s not possible. We have raised it, but nothing has happened yet.”

Staff feedback demonstrated uncertainty regarding the provider's expectations and some staff felt their concerns had not been fully addressed. This increased the risk of disengagement and potentially the provider's ability to embed a positive culture and sustained improvement.

The provider told us, “We come every week we talk to staff.” They told us they were new to the care home sector but aimed to work with staff to make improvements to the home and the care and service people received. They told us of their plans to help improve staffing arrangements and acknowledged that being new to the service meant staff needed time to embrace the changes they planned and embed new working arrangements.