Wollaton Park Care 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

We assessed 2 quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. The assessment of these areas indicated areas of good practice since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good. People were supported to live in a safe, inclusive environment in which they were treated fairly and free from the fear of being discriminated against. People were supported to understand their equality and human rights and how staff and managers would respect these. Managers made sure staff were given appropriate training and supported to treat people equally and fairly and reduce the risk of them being excluded from receiving care and support they were entitled to. Managers used people’s feedback to improve care to reduce any barriers people might experience due to their protected characteristics.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

In the absence of the activity coordinator on the first day of our visit, we saw staff had limited time available for engaging people in any games, crafts or choosing a film. Instead, age-appropriate music played on a loop and the television was on the same channel with the sound on low; with no subtitles used so even people sitting closer to the television could not hear it. Most people in the large lounge would not have been able to see the television due to their distance away from the screen. We did see people encouraged to go on a trip out to visit another service across the road to participate in a musical activity on day two of our site assessment. People were positive in their feedback about the activities provided when the activity co-ordinator was on duty. One person said, “[Name of staff member] is a nice person and does something most afternoons. We go for a coffee morning sometimes. I enjoy the church service they have here and the Bishop came up to see me in my room for a chat.” Another person told us, “The activity person does some games or we sit out in the garden. We go with them on the pub outing once a month with the other residents.”

People were protected from the risk of discrimination by staff who understood their identified needs and protected characteristics. One staff member told us in relation to a person’s specific dietary requirements, “It’s the person’s religion and you’ve got to respect people’s religion and culture.”

The noticeboard and monthly newsletter for the service showed various planned activities including Holy Communion dates, a local pub coffee morning, together with recent events for a singer, church coffee morning and residents’ meetings. Significant events, such as residents’ birthdays, local community events, dates for the hairdresser visits, D-Day and upcoming sporting events, such as the Olympics were highlighted for people.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

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.

People were not able to tell us about care planning for the end of their lives and how they wished to be supported at this time. One relative gave positive feedback about this, they told us, “There is an advanced end of life plan in place and they do have a copy here.”

The management team raised some concerns around the recorded decisions and some of the descriptive terminology used in some people’s Respect forms. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment. It is a process used to create personalised recommendations for someone’s clinical care in emergency situations, where they are unable to make decisions or express their wishes. We raised these concerns with our CQC colleagues who work with the covering GP practice and shared these concerns with the Integrated Commissioning Board covering the area.

We found end of life care planning had been discussed appropriately and was documented in people’s care plans. People’s wishes and feelings were documented regarding their funeral arrangements. There was clear recording of Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNaR) documentation in people’s care plans. People had an emergency care plan in place, which ensured they would have their needs met in the event of a hospital admission or an emergency event.