Wall Hill Care Home Limited

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

People were not always supported in a person-centred way which considered their individual needs. Staff interactions were often task focused. We looked into concerns about the times people were supported to get in and out of bed; 2 people shared concerns with us about this. People could have visitors at their chosen time.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Prior to our assessment we received feedback from people who visited and worked at the service that suggested people were not always supported to get out of bed at a time that met their individual preferences. During our assessment we received some feedback from people that supported this feedback. One person told us they did not always like the time they were supported to go to bed or get up in the morning and 1 other person told us someone else was ‘made’ to go to bed early.

Another reason for our assessment was due to repeated concerns being shared with us about visitors being restricted from visiting those who lived in the home. We looked into this and there were no restrictions on visiting and relatives could see people when they wanted to. Visitors arrived unannounced to the home throughout our assessment. No one told us there were restrictions, other than avoiding mealtimes where possible to avoid distracting people from eating. However, visitors could still visit in this time if needed.

Staff felt care plans contained enough detail about people’s needs and how to support them. Staff knew people’s needs and were able to tell us about these.

People were not routinely supported or encouraged to partake in activities, and it was clear people were bored throughout our site visits. There was a TV on in the communal lounge, but there were minimal activity options for people to do. Staff were task orientated and there was minimal interaction other than when a person needed support. We observed a person being told they could not take their evening food to eat in their bedroom by a staff member. A member of the management team and the nominated individual explained the person was known to leave food to go mouldy after being taken to their room. However, as this was known, staff could have gone to check the person’s room at a later time to remove any uneaten food.

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.

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