Wyndham House Care

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. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 45 (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. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. We found agency staff in the lounge area rarely interacted with people and rather served the purpose of observers rather than having meaningful conversations with people. People told us the staff treated them well. One relative told us. “Yes, they love him, he is a people person, the staff really care and I love that they do a video of the residents. I notice that dad was dancing with one of the carers and that was nice, they are kind”. The provider celebrated major milestones for people and held special events and parties. However, we found that people were not always treated with dignity and compassion. We observed staff impatiently grabbing residents by the arm to move them.

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 into account people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. We observed agency staff in communal areas who appeared task-focused and did not take the time to address residents by name or acknowledge their individual preferences. Care plans contained some personal information, but this was not always reflected in day-to-day interactions. People told us that permanent staff generally knew them well, but agency staff often did not. One relative told us, “The regular staff are lovely and know him well, but some of the agency staff seem to just come in and not really know who he is.”

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. We observed the pace of care was driven by staff schedules rather than individual preference. People were not always offered meaningful choices about their daily routines, meals or activities. We observed that people in the lounge area were seated in fixed positions for extended periods with limited engagement from staff. One family member told us, “Sometimes I wonder if they [relative] even get asked what they want to do during the day.” The service acknowledged and celebrated people’s achievements, and some people spoke positively about the activities available. However, access to the garden and outdoor space was limited and not part of the daily routine for most people.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.We observed call bells were not always answered promptly. People told us that staffing levels varied considerably depending on the shift and the number of agency staff deployed. Relatives raised concerns that when they visited, residents in communal areas were sometimes left unattended for extended periods. We saw people walking around with no shoes on, with no effort by staff to get shoes or slippers for them. There were set times for hot drinks, and we did not see people were actively offered drinks outside this window.

The provider did not always care about and promote the well-being of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. The rota showed that two permanent care staff had been continuously absent throughout December 2025 and into January 2026. This sustained absence, combined with a 48% reliance on agency staff, placed significant pressure on permanent staff who had to guide and supervise unfamiliar workers whilst maintaining their own care responsibilities. Staff told us they sometimes did not receive feedback following reported incidents. The training matrix showed several permanent staff members with compliance gaps across mandatory modules, indicating that the provider’s training oversight processes were not robust enough to ensure all staff were equipped to deliver safe, person-centred care. Permanent staff described feeling overstretched. One staff member told us, “We are trying our best, but it’s hard when you have agency staff who don’t know the residents, and you have to watch them as well as do your own work.” The provider had begun addressing some staffing issues following our first visit.