Wood Hill Grange

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. This is the first assessment of caring for this service under the new provider. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 40 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The staff did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Some interactions we saw were kind and staff showed some compassion. However, many of the interactions we observed were task orientated and not person-centred. Staff did not ask people their choices or assist them to make decisions and people were not respected as individuals. For example, at the mealtime staff referred to people who required assistance with their food as ‘feeders.’ People said some staff were kind, however, many said staff they were always rushed and did not have time to talk or listen. One person said, “They [staff] don’t communicate with you they just ask you what you want for dinner, I am waiting for my pudding now, but no one will get me one.”

The service did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Staff did not speak with people or include them in conversation. For example, we asked a question to staff that a person had asked, and the staff member gave the answer to us rather than directing it at the person. We observed people were sat for hours in the same spot with little or no social stimulation. People’s choices were not considered. One person said, “I don’t have a choice when I get up, it’s when the staff have time.”

Our observation of the mealtime on our second visit saw some improvements, however, this was not consistant. The manager was working with staff to drive improvements to esnure people were treated as individuals.

The service did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing. Staff were task orientated in their approach to care. For example, people were washed by staff, assisted to sit out, taken to the toilet, given drinks, but these were done with little or no interaction or support. People were not offered choices, given time to make decisions or supported with their independence. Staff sat together at times but did not interact with people. We observed staff members sat observing people in the communal areas, however, they did not engage, offer activities, or communicate with the people sat with them. People told us staff did not support them, one person when asked how they were assisted/supported with their independence they said, “I am not encouraged at all.” We observed one person being supported to go to the dining table, they were walking very slowly but safely, staff decided to get a wheelchair to assist, this made it quicker for staff but did not promote the persons independence.

The service did not always listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did respond to emergency situations. For example, falls or incidents. But did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. For example, one person wanted to be made comfortable, staff did not respond to this, they just said, ‘They always ask.’ Another person kept trying to get out of bed and was distressed, staff just kept putting them back without finding out what was wrong.

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. Staff were not, supported, supervised, mentored, guided, or deployed effectively to ensure care delivery was person-centred. The new management team had identified this and were working with staff to improve morale and wellbeing. The manager explained it would take time to change the culture, but they were aware of what was required, and they had started implementing some changes. Staff spoke positively about the management changes and were optimistic improvements would be made.