Whittington House Nursing 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 60 (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.

Generally, staff were kind and showed compassion. However, feedback was mixed from people and relatives. Some people commented on how well cared for they felt and others told us some staff were not so caring.

During our assessment we observed a person on two separate occasions using the commode in their bedroom in full view of people walking past. The provider told us the person chose to do this. However, this did not take into account other people living at the home and the impact on them.

We observed a person during lunchtime asking a member of staff if they could have their meal, the staff member walked past them and ignored them.

We did observe some positive interactions between people and staff. However, staff appeared mostly task orientated especially during mealtimes and did not have time to interact or spend meaningful time with people.

One person told us “There is a lovely carer who shares stories and photos about her family.”

And another person told us “Carers are kind on the whole, 1 or 2 are too rough. I haven’t been to the sitting room for a couple of days. Some care staff call in for a chat, I’d like a bit more from staff and fellow residents. Activities team are nice but I’m not keen on the activities they offer.” Another person told us “I wanted to go to the concert yesterday and I was told I would be collected at 2 but it passed and I saw nobody.”

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.

The provider developed individualised care plans, which identified people’s personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met. Care Plans were personalised, and wishes were recorded on their care record. These gave good guidance to staff about the person’s personal preferences and how to support the person effectively.

People’s care plans contained important information such as people’s likes and dislikes and any hobbies and interests. Staff we spoke with were familiar with how to support people with their individual needs and wishes.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives.

People we spoke were unclear if they had been involved in care planning. Some people told us they had not seen their care plans.

Another person told us their experience during the week was better than at weekends. “My room here as part of the rehab with the brain injury team. I get good rehab on weekdays, so arriving on a Friday was not good.”

Some people we spoke with spoke positively about their recent experiences with activities. One person told us “Activity team work incredibly hard, they came round when they first started and asked for interests. Quite a few said bridge so on an afternoon a bridge club comes in, along with volunteers to play Scrabble.”

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

We observed mealtimes, some staff focused primarily on the practical aspects of serving meals and were less attentive to supporting lunchtime as a meaningful social experience. However, some staff showed kindness with supporting people with their meals and were chatting with people, asking people about their meal.

During our assessment we observed a group of people visit the local pub for lunch. This appeared to be a beneficial activity for people.

People told us there was an opportunity to take part in different activities and some staff were proactive in understanding and accommodating what people wanted.

A relative told us, “Good interaction with management and staff, especially (wellbeing lead). They wouldn’t join in but the (wellbeing lead) makes sure they are involved.”

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.

During our assessment we observed a person who was at risk of choking and did not understand the risk of eating certain foods, left unattended trying to eat left over food on a table in a communal area.

People and their relatives gave us mixed feedback in relation to responding to people’s immediate needs. A relative said, “We have to remind them to take them to the toilet –they don’t ask the question in the right way and they just says no. They didn’t clean their teeth or shave their chin yesterday but they have done it today. Really varies on the carers, very short staffed at weekend when we come in”.

Some staff told us where people needed 2 staff to hoist them and carry out personal care, there was not always enough staff to support at that time. This meant people were left waiting.

We observed some people calling for staff during the assessment, but the staff nearby did not acknowledge people calling out.

However, A person told us “I saw the doctor yesterday. You tell the helpers what’s wrong and they take photos of what it is and then they contact the doctor.”

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.

The service had several staff on sponsorship working at the service. The provider told us they supported staff through various schemes and staff wellbeing was important them. However, staff we spoke with told us they felt there was not enough staff and they felt their wellbeing didn’t matter.

A staff member told us “Staff do not matter to the service. There is no wellbeing for us. If staff are unhappy it has a knock on effect on the residents.” Another told us “In order to be person-centred you have to get to know them. It is difficult to have enough time with them some time you are rushed off your feet. It is usually that other departments are short.”

Another staff said, “I think that we could be treated better. We don't have an employee of the month, we do not have a buddy system, and lots of staff call in sick.”

A staff member told us “We would like better communication and team building from management. I made a conscious effort to build relationships with the staff. I would like managers to have more transparency. We don’t have employee of the month. There is no team building or away days.”