Waterloo 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 – 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.

This service scored 75 (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.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion, and respected people’s privacy and dignity. One relative was complimentary of how staff supported their family member’s dignity. They said, “Whenever they need to provide any personal care, they ask me to leave and that’s fine with me.” Staff spoke about people in a respectful way and we saw kind interactions which showed people and staff felt comfortable and confident in each other’s presence. A health professional described staff as ‘kind’ and said, “Staff have always shown compassion and empathy when delivering patient care.”

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.

People’s individual preferences were sought, respected and followed. Knowing people well helped staff support people to make their own day to day care decisions. Care plans contained information about some decisions people needed more help and explanation to understand.

People were able to personalise their own rooms with their possessions so they could have things around them that were important to them and connected them to their past. One relative told us how their family member always took pride in their appearance through their personal presentation and how they dressed. They told us staff understood that and whenever they saw their relative, “He looks brilliant. Clean shaven, that is really important to him, he is meticulous.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Relatives described staff as caring and respectful and told us choice was always offered and promoted. We saw and heard staff offering people choice throughout our visit. Staff offered people choice with what they wanted to wear, where they wanted to go in the home, or where they wanted to sit. People had control over who supported them at the home and choice of the gender of staff who helped them with personal care. At lunchtime people were offered a choice of meals. For people with memory issues, staff showed plated options so people had sensory prompts to help them make their choices. Assessments showed which people needed staff support, such as with eating and drinking. We saw staff encouraged people to do as much for themselves as possible.

There was a commitment to improve the activities and interests at the home. Whilst some people felt there was limited stimulation, for others it was recognised and pursued. We were told about 1 person who had links with the local community which staff supported. This person wanted to maintain those important relationships, and this was done.

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 staff responded to their requests for assistance. One person said, “There’s a bell by my bed and a mat that alerts them. They always come quite quickly.” One relative said staff were able to respond to people in the moment. They said, “They have to get [Name] up but she can stay in bed if she wants to. I can’t say I have seen staff rushed here. If she wants to go to her room they will take her, they are good like that.” Another person told us, “If I want to go back to my room now I can.” Our observations showed staff were responsive to people’s requests for help or support.

Most people told us they did not always use their call bell, however, people and relatives told us they were confident to do so, when required. No concerns were raised by people or relatives regarding experiencing delays in assistance, but some people and relatives recognised staff were always busy.

Staff described instances where they had promptly supported people. This included obtaining emergency treatment when people had experienced a fall, and when people wanted additional reassurance when they were distressed. We saw people did not have to wait long for elements of their care from staff. For example, a person in their room experienced a period of anxiety and called out for staff. Two staff promptly went to the person to reassure them, using phrases which connected with the person and their past. When it came to seeking medical support, external health professionals told us staff were prompt in seeking their advice and guidance.

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

The registered manager also told us they facilitated reasonable adjustments for some staff, for example around pregnancy or for staff who had specific health problems. Where staff needed time for medical appointments, this was facilitated and additional staff were deployed to ensure there was no impact on people’s care.