Watermoor 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

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 changed to Requires Improvement.

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.

People were not always treated with kindness, compassion or dignity. For example, people who needed support with re-positioning were not always supported in a timely manner. This led to them being sat in bed or in chairs in undignified ways. For example, we saw 2 people in their bed in an uncomfortable position for 4 hours. We spoke to 1 person who was experiencing distress, and they told us, “I’m lonely, staff haven’t got time.” When we spoke to the registered manager, they told us the people we had observed were self-ambulatory and could re-position themselves. When we reviewed care records for the people we observed, we found they were not supported with regular re-positioning.

The provider did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care records were not always person-centred. They did not always evidence support met people’s individual needs and preferences. They did not always contain information about important events in people’s life history and how they wished to be supported including their likes and dislikes. People’s protected characteristics such as religious beliefs and disability were not always reflected in care records. Staff were not aware of the guidance ‘right support, right care, right culture’ when supporting people with a learning disability, however staff did have training in learning disabilities. Staff we spoke to understood people’s individual needs but did not always know how best to support the person. A staff member was able to recall people who were at a higher risk of falls, but not what mitigation had been put in place or what their goals were.

The service 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 were not always supported to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing where this should be reasonably possible. Although the service had a busy and diverse activity schedule and we observed people being supported to walk in the gardens which were open to a nearby road, we found communal areas lacked photos of people enjoying the activities. The activities co-ordinator had created a very person-centred scrapbook however it was kept locked away and not available to people. People told us they didn’t have enough access to the garden, and staff were always too busy to help them. People told us they did not always get a choice of having a shower every day. One person told us, “I would love a bath but don’t always get one.”

The service 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 tried to help people quickly when they needed urgent help but didn’t always have the necessary tools or equipment available. The service did not have a system to monitor call bell response times. The registered manager told us there were shortfalls in the system as the call bell system was old. Several suggestions were discussed on ways the registered manager could conduct call bell response time audits, and since our inspection, this has been rectified. One person told us a fire alarm had gone off for an hour recently but no one had come to explain to them what was happening, however the registered manager did assure us people had been given reassurance on the day and the alarm had experienced an unforeseen fault.

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

With the exception of regularly scheduled staff meetings, we found evidence staff were given the opportunity to feedback about concerns with the service and their own wellbeing. Concerns raised had been considered and actioned by the registered manager. The registered manager told us they had a group chat where they shared positive messages with the staff, and there was an incentive system in place for staff. The registered manager explained they picked a specific area of care, for example bathing or timekeeping and monitored staff monthly. Staff members who showed they were performing highly were acknowledged. The registered manager also told us about team events they had organised to foster teamwork. We saw evidence the registered manager had supported staff with health conditions to have reasonable adjustments to enable them to continue working at the service.