Wombwell Hall

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

We found that the service Requires Improvement in relation to the Caring domain. People had not always had choice and control over all aspects of their care and their choices had not always been respected. The systems and processes in the service had not always enabled people to be treated as individuals at all times or enabled people’s immediate needs to always be fully met. Staff working at Wombwell Hall were kind and caring, they treated people with dignity and respect outside of the limitations from issues found. Staff felt supported in their roles and enjoyed working at Wombwell Hall. People were encouraged to maintain as much independence as possible.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People spoke highly of the care staff, saying staff were kind and caring. Comments from people included, “The carers are so respectful, really nice and kind”, “The carers are lovely and attentive, I feel I matter to them” and, “The carers are brilliant. They come and check on me and say hello. They are so kind and respectful.” Relatives told us they felt staff were kind and caring and knew their loved ones well. Comments from relatives included, “The carers have time for us. They know their boundaries, they’re very professional. I’d say they were delightful”, “The carers all know [loved one] and love [them], I can tell. They chat to us as well. They knock before entering and are very respectful towards [loved one]” and, “The staff are friendly and recognise me. They deal in a kindly way when supporting residents.”

Staff understood the importance of treating people with kindness and compassion whilst respecting their privacy and dignity. Comments from staff included, “Doors close when doing personal care. Give them time. If they do not want personal care in the morning, you offer them when they want it.” and “This is their home, you respect it and respect their space and property.”

We received positive feedback from external partners regarding interactions between staff and people using the service. The local GP surgery fed back, ‘The staff are hardworking, considerate, caring and enjoy their job and provide good care services for the patient and their relatives visiting the home.’

Throughout our assessment visit we observed that staff were respectful and treated people with respect. Staff were observed to be mindful of the importance of maintaining people’s dignity and promoting individual choice. When people showed a sign of distress or anxiety, they were promptly reassured by a member of staff who asked them how they were feeling and offered to help them. When staff did interact with people, to support with essential care needs, they were positive, said hello, knocked on doors before entering and largely enabled and respected people’s choices. For example, if someone wanted to sleep a little longer this was respected by staff. Doors were shut when personal care was given.

People told us staff knew them well. People told us they enjoyed staff spending time with them and speaking with them although many people had commented staff were not always able to. Comments included, “The carers will come over to me sometimes and have a chat. It makes such a difference to me when they find the time to do that” and “They listen to me. They are very busy, but you get moments when they’ll pass a comment, and we’ll have a laugh.”

Staff told us that people were treated as individuals. One member of staff said, “You chat with people and treat them as individual, like you want to be treated. Speak to them politely. Listen to what they have to say and respect it.” Staff told us they felt they knew people well. One member of staff gave an example of a person’s favourite clothes.

We observed people being offered choices throughout our visit to the service such as choice of hot and cold drinks, options as to where they wanted to sit and what they wanted to do. At lunch time, people were re offered meal choices in case they had changed their mind or had forgotten what they had chosen the day before. People’s nutrition needs were supported to a level appropriate for them for example, those who were able to support themselves during mealtimes did so, others were supported by staff. Staff were aware of people’s preferred choice of area to sit and with whom whilst having their meal. People’s spiritual and religious needs continued to be met both within the service and the external community. One person was observed to engage with a member of staff who shared the same culture. The person and staff member spoke to each other in their preferred dialect, the person laughed and smiled.

The processes at Wombwell Hall did not always capture people’s individuality. People’s care records were not always consistently individualised. For example, some people’s care records contained standardised phrases. Sometimes people’s social, cultural and communication needs were not consistently recorded within people’s care records so staff could consistently meet their needs. Other times these needs had been identified however people were not fully supported at all relevant times to maximise their involvement to achieve fully personalised care. For example, where a person’s first language was not English a translator had not been involved in their capacity assessment.

People gave mixed feedback about their choice and control over aspects of their daily living, people sometimes felt their choices were not respected such as food preferences. Feedback regarding the activities people were offered within the service was also mixed. Comments included, “I do take part in things like bingo, dominoes, skittles, painting and modelmaking”, “Most activities take place in Weller and while they take me there, you can miss a lot because of the weather and then nothing is going on here” and, “I am in my room so no activities for me, but the activity co-ordinator has been around a couple of times and just sat and chatted to me. Otherwise, I do get bored of course I do!”

Staff told us that any equipment that was identified during the initial assessment that would help promote people’s independence would be ordered and used. For example, using adapted cutlery and mobility aids. One member of staff said, “I encourage independence a lot. No matter how small or little the person can do. For example, we give them adaptative cutlery if it helps them eat independently.”

People were supported to have choice and control over some aspects of their daily living however at other times people seemed to lack choice and control which resulted in them being disengaged. For example, lounges had books, board games and a wide variety of DVDs however, these were not observed to be accessed. We saw the television on in the lounge however no one was watching a people were dozing. Over the two days of the assessment, there was not much evidence of meaningful social activity or stimulation for people. However, there were no restrictions on visitors or visiting times. People had access to their friends and family throughout the assessment visit; visitors were encouraged and seen with their loved ones on all units. We observed people were encouraged to maintain their independence during lunch. For example, we saw people using equipment to increase their independence such as the use of lidded cups, adapted cutlery and plate guards.

People had not always been supported to make informed decisions about their care and support. Systems were not in place to support people to understand the decision they were making in a way they could understand. When decisions had been made in the person’s best interests there was no clear record of how the person had been involved in the decision to restrict them with the use of bed rails. Some people’s care plans recorded how they communicated and how they like to be communicated with however, this was not consistent across the care plans we viewed. This meant communication was not always promoted and supported between staff and people. People’s care records contained details of people that were important to them such as relatives and friends, it recorded people’s names and area in which they lived. We saw some examples of people’s pastime hobbies had been recorded such as, gardening and how this is now supported for example, sitting close to the patio door and looking out over the garden. Another person’s care plan recorded their favourite song and band.

People told us they enjoyed speaking with the care staff however, the time was limited to when people were receiving personal care or support. One person said, “[Staff] will talk to me while they are helping me. The longer they are with me, the longer they talk, which is good.”

Staff told us they responded to people’s needs quickly as and when required. Staff gave examples of when they have supported people in the event of an emergency. One member of staff said, “If someone had a fall. We call for help immediately and the unit manager comes to assess the person and decide whether to call ambulance.”

Throughout our observations across all units, staff usually responded quickly to people and call bells were usually answered promptly. However, we also observed instances where people had to wait a long time for their needs to be met. For example, we observed a person in the lounge trying to get out of their chair however, staff did not support them for a period of 30 minutes. We also observed one person having to wait 10 minutes 10 seconds before staff were able to attend to their needs. We spoke with the registered manager about this who informed us that this was unusual and could have been a result of the fire alarm test held that day. We observed that care staff were task focused leaving little time to fully engage people using the service. At other times, we saw staff promptly responding to people’s needs. For example, when people had finished their meal or wanted more, they were freely able to let staff know and staff responded instantly by removing their plate or replacing it with more food.

Staff told us they felt supported in their role by their line manager and the management team. Staff told us they attended regular one-to-one supervision meetings and team meetings where they had the opportunity to raise any concerns or make suggestions. Staff told us they enjoyed their role and working for the organisation. Comments included, “I’m happy working here”, “The unit manager encourages self-reflection to help us identify our learning, we also use team meetings to discuss where we have got it wrong and the plan of action to improve” and, “The home manager is very approachable and supportive she is very accommodating.”

Systems were in place to ensure staff have regular opportunities to give and receive feedback through regular supervision meetings with their line manager. Team meetings were held on a regular basis where suggestions were listened to and implemented if necessary. The provider sent out an annual survey to all staff to gather feedback about their role and responsibilities. The results of these surveys were collated to form a view of the service which was mostly positive.