Wasdale Court

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

This means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This key question was last rated 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.

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 did not always ensure people were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respected their privacy and dignity. We observed one person been supported whose dignity was compromised; they were not distressed but this was not in line with good practice. The provider and registered manager fully acknowledged this and identified actions that would be taken in response to this. Feedback from people shared other occasions where people’s privacy had not been respected. Examples included, staff been in a person’s space when they were out, staff coming in to make their own meals / drinks without the person’s permission and failing to knock on doors and seek permission before entering. One person told us, “I think staff aren’t always remembering this is people’s space.”

Most people fed back that staff were kind and compassionate in their approach. Comments included, " They’re a nice bunch, no sense of a poor culture there. Everyone's very welcoming; chatty, cheerful, bubbly etc” and “the staff seem to genuinely care.”

We observed natural interactions between people and staff. Staff were kind within their approach and people responded in a positive way.

Information was available about people’s individual needs, strengths and personal history. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, culture, unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. People’s communication needs were assessed, and information was recorded to help guide staff practice. Staff were familiar with people’s non-verbal communication cues. A relative described how they and the staff team worked together and shared information to benefit the person’s day-to-day life. The registered manager was familiar with people’s personal circumstances and important relationships.

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 were not consistently supported to engage in meaningful activities. For example, for one person a detailed assessment had been completed which identified certain enrichment activities, but records and staff feedback did not support this was used in practice. People gave mixed feedback about activities provision, with some noting attempts were made to engage in meaningful activities whilst others felt this was inconsistent. A person described the service as boring.

The registered manager was developing communal activities which people could participate in if they wanted to such as craft sessions and coffee mornings. We observed people been encouraged to join in with some gardening and others who were going out for a walk to the shops.

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.

Staff were present to provide people with support when needed. People shared their views and were comfortable with seeking staff support. Some people expressed they found this more difficult when been supported by agency staff. Staff explained how they reassured people who were experiencing distress and information was available to guide them.

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 their well-being was considered and there was flexibility to accommodate for their own personal circumstances. Staff felt able to approach the management and share any concerns. A staff member stated, “We are there to support residents, but the management look after us.” When incidents occurred, staff well-being was considered alongside the person been supported. Team meetings were arranged but there was limited staff engagement with this. The registered manager acknowledged further work was required to ensure collective staff feedback was captured to try and improve the service.