Wilkinson Park

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.

People told us staff were kind, supportive and helpful. Staff recognised and understood people’s individual needs and encouraged people to be independent. People told us they would like to engage in more community activities. Staff told us they were well supported by the registered manager and the wider organisation.

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 told us they were happy living at the home and staff were helpful and supportive to them. They said staff were available to help them with their care needs and were available to talk to, if they wished to. A person told us, “I like living here – it’s good. I’m staying here until I’m 32. The staff are good, caring, and always listen.”

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and the requirements of supporting people in the service. A staff member told us, “I genuinely enjoy helping others and being someone they can rely on for both practical assistance and emotional support. I also appreciate the variety and human connection in this role.”

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.

Care plans were personal to the individual and contained good information about people’s likes, dislikes and specific needs. People told us staff understood them and supported them to maintain their independence and personal lifestyle.

Staff spoke about how they supported people to meet their personal needs and how training by the service had enhanced the way they approached people’s care needs. A staff member told us, “It (training) has made me more aware of how to listen better, respect individual choices, and adapt my approach depending on each person’s needs. The training has made me more confident, competent, and more aware of best practice in my day-to-day role.”

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.

People, relatives and professionals all raised concern regarding the limited ability for people to access the community because of the location of the service and the lack of staff who could drive designated vehicles. Comments from people included, “Sometimes you get out. I can’t get out in my own car” and “There is not always a driver – therefore no transport. Therefore, you can’t go out. You can’t go out on your own because there are no buses out here.” A professional told us, “I have had residents report frustrations where the needs of 3-4 residents can affect timings. They may not always be able go into town at the time of day they would prefer, or that transport is changed if a driver is off sick.”

The registered manager spoke about trying to ensure that at least one staff member who could drive was on duty, on each shift, throughout the week. They also said that the provider had regional drivers, who could support the service, although not on a regular basis.

Where people were able to access the community, then activities were in line with their personal requests. For example, people were asked in questionnaires what activities they would like to engage in. Comments included, ‘shopping,’ ‘pub meal,’ ‘going for coffee’ and ‘visiting family and friends.’ We saw evidence people had been engaged in these types of activities.

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 they could approach the registered manager, or the deputy manager, if they had any concerns. They told us both senior staff were easily accessible, and we witnessed people visiting the office to speak with the registered manager on a regular basis. There was evidence in files that people had spoken with senior staff about issues, and these had then been investigated and action taken, as appropriate.

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

Staff told us they were well supported by the managers at the service and senior managers within the organisation. Supervision sessions carried out by senior staff had included the completion of wellbeing questionnaires. Staff had also been encouraged to highlight the positive contribution of colleagues at the home.

Sponsored staff told us they were treated fairly and they where happy with the conditions of employment in the service. A staff member told us, “I’m happy with my sponsorship conditions and how I’m being supported.”

Staff confirmed they were treated well and that the service considered equality and fairness when supporting staff members. Comments included, “I feel supported by [manager] and senior staff. They are approachable and ready to give guidance when required” and “[Manager] is really good. If possible, she will rearrange shifts if my family is ill. If I needed them, they’d be there.”