Waverley Care 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 the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. We reviewed 5 quality statements and found breaches of regulation in respect of privacy and dignity. Care plans did not always hold a record of people’s life history or personal preferences to guide staff on how to care for people in a person-centred way. Activities were not taking place and staff told us they did not always have time to undertake meaningful activity with people. We observed people left within their bedrooms for prolonged periods without call bells and no social stimulation. People were not supported to have independence, choice and control in their daily living.

This service scored 25 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People spoken with stated staff were kind and supportive. On person said, “They don’t knock all the time, sometimes they just come in without knocking if they forget.” Another person said, “There is a new manager who has no time for anyone.”

The manager failed to take action to ensure people’s dignity was maintained and their basic care needs met prior to and during the assessment. We informed the manager there were insufficient oral care items, towels and appropriate crockery. No action was taken by the manager to investigate this further. Staff members were not aware that people did not have access to oral care items.

We did not received feedback from partners as part of this quality statement.

People’s dignity was not always maintained. We observed cracked crockery and infant beakers being used for people undermining their dignity. We observed people’s nails were long and dirty, and they appeared unkempt. Observations of the environment found items and fixtures as not dignified or fit for purpose. For example, towels and bedding where thread bare. Curtains were hanging off the rails and did not fit windows appropriately letting in light when drawn closed. People's preferences in relation to their personal and intimate care needs were not being met. Care records reflected on the day of the assessment people were provided a shower and nail care, however, on observation people appeared unkempt.

People were not always treated as individuals. Many of the people we spoke to told us they had nothing to do and spent most of the time in their room.

A member of staff told us, “No I don’t think there is enough activities, and they don’t get to go out.” Care records did not contain any personal, cultural, social and religious needs. Staff did not appear to know people's backgrounds or life histories.

People were not treated as individuals and their needs and preferences were not considered. There was no consideration given to people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture, unique backgrounds or protected characteristics. There were no activities taking place and no community activities. One person’s cultural preferences with regards to food was not being catered for. One person was sat in a chair within their bedroom throughout the day with no stimulation or interaction with other people.

Systems and processes had failed to ensure people were treated as individuals and cared for in a way that met their needs. There was no evidence of people’s preferences being included in care records and care records were often inaccurate and inconsistent. People’s care plans did not reflect individual life histories or future aspirations. We found examples of people's dietary notifications populated with the same information about their food like and dislikes.

We received limited feedback from people regarding independence, choice and control. Feedback from a relative reflected they had not been asked to be involved in care plan reviews.

Staff told us people were able to choose when they got up, went to bed, what to eat and said they supported people's routines. There was no choice provided to people and the food provided was not a healthy balanced meal. Portion sizes were inadequate and would not support people who were at risk of malnutrition.

People’s independence and choice was not promoted, and people were not always supported to make choices. People spent most of their time in the same place throughout our visit and where not given choice about where they ate their meals. People were not offered opportunities to take part in any activities or conversations. We observed little interaction between staff and people, on our arrival a member of staff was sat on a stool by the lounge door away from people, rather than sitting amongst people engaging with them. Staff focused on tasks and offered people no opportunities for stimulation.

Care plans were not person centred or demonstrated involvement of people in their choices and care planning. There was no evidence of care plan reviews with people or their families.

People did not always have their immediate needs responded to. People told us they were often left unsupported for long periods of time. People unable to move from their beds were not able to alert staff if they needed assistance as calls bells had been placed out of reach.

Leaders did not respond to people’s immediate needs. They did not effectively engage people and listen to their views and wishes.

People's immediate needs were not always responded to in a timely way. We observed examples where people’s personal care needs had not been met and where a person was exposed to pain and discomfort from an unsuitable bed with no action taken in response to this.

Staff did not feel the management promoted, supported or enabled them to effectively deliver people with person centred care. A staff member told us they had raised issues with the manager regarding processes in place, however no actions were taken.

Systems and processes were not effective in supporting staff in their role or supporting their well-being. Staff supervision or appraisal was not consistently taking place. Staff had not been given the support they needed for their own well-being or to understand about good care.