Wayside Care Home

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 changed to requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. People were not always treated with dignity and respect. Although some positive interactions were observed, including respectful medicines administration, inspectors also noted, use of inappropriate language when referring to people which included derogatory and demeaning references to them. We saw the environment was poorly maintained including people’s individual bedrooms. This did not reflect a dignified or respectful living environment which could negatively affect people’s comfort, wellbeing, and sense of self-worth poor. People ate from over chair tables which were broken and showed ineffective infection prevention and control practices. This demonstrated people were not valued as individuals or treated with respect by the provider.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Care was not consistently personalised. Care plans lacked detail about people’s preferences and future wishes, with some sections left blank without explanation regarding the missing information. For example, in peoples care plan for personal care there was the single entry of ‘wash’. There was no personal or individual reflection on what ‘wash’ means to them as an individual. There was no information on how the person wished to be engaged or what their personal preferences were. There was a risk that people did not get the care they would have preferred.

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’s choice and control were not consistently promoted. For example, menu systems were not followed. Menus were placed on the dining tables for people. We asked staff about these and what the options were for lunch. Staff told us they haven’t looked at the menus in years and just cook whatever they have available. The provider could not evidence people were afforded the basic choice of food or alternatives. We did not see people being offered alternatives at mealtimes. The information provided was inaccurate and not relevant to the decisions the person could make. The limited information regarding the provision of personal care limited individuals’ ability to make effective choices. Some areas of the home, including bath and shower rooms, were not in use further limiting peoples personal care options.

The provider 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 did not always respond effectively or safely to people’s needs. In some cases, unsafe practices and delayed responses placed people at risk of harm, particularly during moving and handling activities. There was a lack of awareness by the provider, management team and staff on issues which could potentially impact on people’s emotional wellbeing. For example, the lift was below the minimum accessible standards. We saw people being pushed into the lift and the doors closed as a staff member then climbed the stairs to call the lift. There was a lack of engagement with the person, a lack of explanation on what was happening, a lack of consideration to the emotional impact of isolation in a confined area, a lack of the impact of the sensory stimulation from the lights motors and doors without support. People were then removed from the lift backwards without staff informing or engaging them. However, we also saw some positive interactions between staff and people on a personal basis and some instances where staff and people shared a joke and chatted about the weather.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. We spoke with the management team about some of the concerns regarding staff conduct on the inspection. They stated they “couldn’t understand why” staff were carrying out unsafe practices. However, there was no evidence the provider had attempted to observe or challenge unsafe practices or provide the guidance or assessments to ensure staff could deliver safe person centred care. The provider failed to demonstrate they understood the potential impact on staff wellbeing by having to resort to the use of unsafe work practices.