Whittington House Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans did not always accurately reflect people’s health needs. One person’s care plan said they were type 2 diabetic, although elsewhere in the care plan it said they were type 1 diabetic. This person was insulin dependent living with dementia and assessed as lacking capacity to make a decision about their care. However, their care plan stated they self-managed their diabetes. Their nutritional care plan made no reference to supporting a person with diabetes and dietary requirements to help manage this.

A relative told us their loved one did not often have their hearing aids in place. Another relative told us their loved one needed dental treatment, but this had not been picked up by the carers, despite the person needing assistance to clean their teeth.

Staff told us they would like to have more time to spend with people. Some staff said they did not have enough time to get to know people. Some staff told us care plans were not always updated quickly enough to reflect changes in people’s needs, for example, where a person was being cared for in bed.

Some feedback from people and their relatives was positive. “Staff all know him. They phoned when dad became ill and even when he was in hospital they’d ring to check how he was”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People’s needs were reviewed daily in staff handovers’, with referrals were made to the relevant professionals, such as Speech and language therapists. The Service had a good relationship with the local GP surgery, with weekly visits from the surgery to discuss people.

The service had formed positive relationships within the local community such as with the school and local veterans organisation. One person told us “The school comes in and they do singing. We have lots of visitors.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People had communication plans and the provider had an accessible information policy.

People were given information when they first moved in about the service, how to raise a complaint or provide feedback about their care. For one person whose first language was not English the service had adapted flash cards to aid communication between the person and staff during day to day interactions.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The service held people, relative and staff meetings to make sure people were involved in the service at all levels.

However, a recent care review involved a person’s son but not the person, the person was able to voice what they wanted but this was not reflected as part of the review. There was no documentation to support he decision not to involve the person.

Feedback from relatives told us that whilst they could raise concerns, change did not always happen or did not happen in a timely way.

A relative told us, “We’ve put in a complaint a number of times but nothing’s got sorted. There are some lovely staff here but lots of staff changes in last 3 years. We’d like it to run a bit nicer.” Another relative told us their concerns took a lot of perseverance to get resolved.”

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People who used the service received care, support and treatment when they needed it regardless of any protected characteristics. The service worked with local GP practices and community nursing teams. The service had a good relationship with teams who visited the service regularly.

Staff told us “We have a wishing tree where we ask residents if they have any wishes. We are part of the veteran friendly framework”. Staff told us they try to support people to access thecommunity. Some people had additional support from 1:1 care which enabled them to go shopping in the local area with a carer weekly.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service had recently employed a new wellbeing lead. An activities team arranged activities within the home. They told us they had spent time speaking with people to gather information about people’s life histories and what was important to them. This information had then been recorded in people’s care documentation. The introduction of new schemes, such as the intergeneration scheme (Bringing people of different ages together), was received positively.

People had access to a hairdresser and chiropodist.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy which covered the organisation’s approach towards discrimination. Staff had completed equality and diversity training.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People had care plans which considered their end of life wishes.

People had important information to support staff, such as a DNAR (do not attempt resuscitation).The service had worked with visiting doctors and the GP surgery to ensure DNAR paperwork was completed and up to date.