Wall Hill Care Home Limited

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

People and relatives generally did not raise concerns with us about how they were treated, however our observations did not always confirm what people told us. People were not always supported in a kind and caring manner. People were not always supported in a dignified manner. There was not always a choice of hobbies to partake in and people were bored. There was a lack of meaningful activity.

This service scored 55 (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 not always supported in the most kind and caring manner, as we discuss below. People and relatives did not raise concerns with us about this and generally told us they felt well supported. One person told us, “Staff are all nice.” Another person said, “I’m not embarrassed [when being supported with personal care] as staff are good with me.” A relative told us, “I find all the staff are very good, they are caring and pleasant. Staff don’t make my relative feel embarrassed if they have an accident, they are very good.” We observed a nice interaction between a staff member who was supporting a person at lunch time who had been poorly, and this was kind and caring.

Staff were kind and caring when speaking about people with us. One staff member told us the best thing about working at Wall Hill Care Home was ‘the residents’.

The local authority had identified areas for improvement earlier in 2024 during quality monitoring visits to the service. They had identified improvements were needed in relation to supporting people to be involved in the community and for people to have appropriate and engaging activities available. This was initially identified by the local authority as an action in January 2024 and remained an ‘in progress’ action in May 2024. We continued to find concerns with this during our inspection.

While we did observe many caring interactions between staff and people, this was not consistent, and staff were not always mindful of their approach. We saw some interactions which meant people were not always treated with kindness. One person made verbal complaints about the food and said they were going to eat in their room. A staff member told them they could not do this and had to eat in the dining room. The provider explained the person had support needs around food. However, the person did not want to stay in the dining room, so they did not have anything to eat at that time. Another person asked for a snack and staff did not get this for them. When an inspector asked staff if the person could have something, they were told the person had to wait until teatime as it was not long to wait. We observed an occasion where an agency staff member was standing over a person while supporting them to eat at breakfast. At lunch time, a person was being supported with their meal. There was minimal interaction from the staff member and the person was not encouraged with their meal. This was not dignified support. We heard a staff member talking to other staff about an incident in their personal life loudly in a communal area where people were present which was not dignified.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

People were not supported to partake in activities, there was minimal stimulation and people appeared listless and told us they were bored. One person said, “There is nothing to do here at all.” Another person also told us, “There’s nothing here to do.” The only planned regular activities were an exercise class once a week and a visit from the hairdresser.

People fed back to us ideas of what they liked to do, such as drawing or painting or having access to a little shop so they could choose their own toiletries or essentials. These were simple and low-cost options which the provider had not been proactive at implementing.



The provider had a minibus which was not regularly used so there were missed opportunities to support people to access the community. One person said, “That minibus wants sorting. We don’t go out.”

Staff told us they did not think there were choices about how people spent their time and not enough to do for people. A staff member said, “There are not enough activities here. Staff can talk and do puzzles, but there’s not enough time.” Another staff member said, “There are not enough activities. People are not going out in the minibus.” The provider confirmed that while there were visits to a local shop or their other care service, these were not regular or available to all people who lived in the home.

The provider had failed to enable staff to engage people in meaningful activities. We did see 2 people partaking in colouring who were able to do this independently. The provider had also not recognised the approach by staff was not always appropriate and mindful of people’s individual needs. One person was supported multiple times to empty their catheter bag while they were sitting in communal areas. Following our feedback, the provider said the person often declined to move for this support, which was the person’s choice. However, we observed the person was not offered the choice to go somewhere more private or not offered the chance to be covered so they could be supported in a more dignified manner. Furthermore, other people in communal rooms may not have wanted to witness urine being emptied from a catheter bag. Another person was being supported by staff to move away from the dining table; however, the staff member moved another person sitting at the same table without communicating this first and they had to move their hand quickly to avoid it becoming trapped. No harm had occurred but could have done had the person not moved their hand quickly. A person was given food in line with their dietary needs. When we asked staff what it was, they did not know what the food was, so would not have been able to explain to the person what they were eating. This was not dignified.

The provider’s systems in place had not been effective at identifying areas for improvement and had not supported people to make choices and take positive risks. A member of the management team completed a daily walk around and this had not identified the issues we note above. As there was a lack of meaningful and regular engagement the provider had not recognised the impact this can have on people and the need for people to have the choice of a fulfilling life.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.