Wensley House Residential 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

Managers and staff understand the health and care needs of people, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity. Staff assessed people’s communication needs and adapted their approach to meet those needs. People were treated in a person-centred way. The ethos of people first care was evident throughout our discussions and observations. Staff interactions were warm, friendly and affectionate.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were at the centre of their care and treatment choices with decisions made in partnership with them. People said they were happy living in Wensley House and were able to engage in as much or as little as they wished. People were able to continue to do things they enjoyed when at home. Relatives said they were very involved in care review meetings and said they had been part of the reviewing process to support decision-making and care planning. Relatives who advocated for people said decisions were taken with the person being part of that review. They said even though the person was unable to understand the purpose of the review, ensuring they were involved was very important to them. Relatives said people were actively involved in the service and staff actively supported their engagement. One relative said, “I see they encourage residents to participate in activities. I also notice some doing crosswords and other personal activities. My [relative] can go out whenever they want to.”

Staff told us they were encouraged by management to provide person- centred care to people. Staff described how they took time to get to know and understand people and how they wanted to be supported. They said staffing levels gave them the time to get to know people to understand their wishes and needs. Through discussions and observations with staff we were assured that staff knew people well and how to meet their individual needs.

Staff interactions were warm, friendly and affectionate. People were observed to be comfortable around the staff, who had clearly built a good rapport with them. There was a friendly, calm and sociable environment on the day of our visit with people smiling and enjoying their day. We saw that the visit of a belly dancer was a hugely well received piece of entertainment, enjoyed by people, relatives and staff alike. We observed throughout our visit that people were supported in a person-centred way, for example, people were offered choices and were included in conversations about what was happening in the service. We saw people’s rooms had been decorated to suit their individual tastes. The provider was very much involved in the day to day management of the service. They knew people well, and their approach to person centred care, along with the registered manager to put people first was evident through all our observations and discussions.

People and relatives said that staff made it easy for them to share feedback or raise complaints about their care and support. Relatives told moving into the home was a positive experience. They said they felt strong support from the management team who organised everything prior to moving in. People were happy with the way staff went about helping them. One person said, “I remember moving in which was a terrifying experience because I’d never been anywhere like this. My family was with me, and they spent time getting me settled. Behind the scenes though was a hive of activity and before I knew it everything was organised. That helped me feel confident in them straight from the beginning.”

Leaders said they worked in partnership with health service providers and people to make sure people get continuity in care.

Partners said the service was proactive in making appropriate referrals so that people get the care they needed in a timely way.

Staff said they were a stable team with a lack of agency use so they were able to provide a service of continuity as they knew the people well.

Health professionals who supported the home were overall positive. They said staff worked well with them, referred people when needed and maintained a continuity of care to benefit people’s health needs. One professional said, “Staff have been very proactive with one person, for example calling the GP, paramedics and the mental health team when needed. This person is new to the care home, but the manager already knows a lot about them and has been trying different ways to engage with them and always asking for medical checks.” A second visiting professional said, “Wensley house staff have worked hard to complete training and become competent to carry out care in order to support their residents. They have been extremely supportive and only work within their competencies and confidence. This provides continuity of care to people. We also run clinics once a week. The purpose is to assess people for acute illnesses and work in partnership with their GP and staff team to provide care to residents of Wensley house to support the home in avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions.” Overall, the staff team worked positively and pro-actively with health professionals to identify and mitigate risks to people’s health, improving the consistency and continuity of care they received.

Processes were in place to ensure continuity of care through effective engagement with local health care services. The registered manager made robust assessments of people to ensure their needs could be met. These processes clearly set out a framework to ensure only those whose needs could be met from day one were admitted. This helped to minimise a failed placement and increase continuity and consistency of care.

People did not comment around providing information. Relatives said that where things required explanation staff did so in a way that people understood. We have used our professional judgement to score this based on feedback from staff and leaders, our observations and processes.

Staff told us how they made sure people received information in a way they could understand. For example, they told us how they explained to people about their medicines in a way that was individual to that person when refusing that medicine. They would use a variety of verbal, written, and nonverbal communication, as well as active listening, feedback, and visual aids to encourage them. Leaders told us they continued to review and develop information within the service to ensure it was fully accessible.

At our previous inspection on 17 July 2019, we found a lack of evidence to show how the Accessible Information Standard had been applied. At this assessment the menu and activity program were now in pictorial format. This meant people could use those visual prompts to make decisions. Furthermore, people’s surveys and feedback forms had been recently amended to meet the accessible information standards. This survey was resent to people for completion using an easy read format during this assessment. When compared to the previous feedback, we saw where people could understand the question, they gave much better feedback, which then gave areas for development. Previously people had simply ticked everything was working well. Assessments included understanding whether people had additional communication needs because of impairment or some form of sensory loss. This demonstrated that adapting this approach gave people the ability to give feedback that was important to them, where previously they had not had this opportunity. The registered manager told us they would continue to develop their care records to be fully accessible using the electronic care planning system due to be installed.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.