Wellesley House Nursing 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

Our rating for this key question remains good. The systems in place needed improvements to ensure people could be supported with their individual needs and involved with their care. However, the care people received was kind and caring by staff who knew them well.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives felt they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity. A relative told us, “I sleep well knowing my relation is looked after.” A person said, “The staff are very good, in fact they are excellent. They are all on my wavelength”.

Leaders and staff felt they were kind and compassionate towards people. They were able to give examples to us of how they treated people with dignity.

As part of this assessment, we asked for feedback from the local authority and the integrated care board. They told us they had recently visited Wellesley House Nursing Home Limited and found concerns. They felt not all people’s privacy and dignity were respected and some people looked uncared for.

During our site visit, we saw staff were kind to people, when they asked for support staff were available and offered help.

Most people and relatives felt the care they received was individual. People we spoke with raised concerns about the lack of stimulation in the home. One person commented, there was nothing to do and another commented, “Theres nothing here, the room is bare, nothing to do. I just have the radio on.”

Staff and leaders knew about the importance of treating people as individuals. Staff told us how they considered people’s individual choices daily.

We saw staff talking to people about things and people that were important to them.

The systems in place to ensure people’s individual needs and preferences were considered were not effective. People did not always have care plans in place when needed and care plans that were in place were not always reflective of people’s current needs and not always followed by staff. However, we saw some care plans were with references to peoples’ preferences including their likes and dislikes.

We received mixed feedback on how people were involved with the home and the choices they received. One person told us, “We did use to get a choice with lunch. We don’t know. They just bring it to me. I do eat it though”. Other people raised no concerns.

Staff and leaders told us they offered choices to people and they encouraged people to remain independent.

We saw people were offered some choices for example, if they wanted to remain in their rooms or if they wanted to go to the communal areas.

There was not always an effective system in place to enable people to consistently have adequate choices. Records and people confirmed they were not always involved with the planning or reviewing of their care and therefore it was unclear how people made choices about their care.

People and relatives felt their needs were responded to.

Staff were not always aware of what was in people’s care files and what people’s most up to date care was when asked. However, leaders told us people’s care was reviewed to ensure their needs were responded to.

We observed staff did not always follow safe moving and handling procedures and, we could not be assured people’s immediate needs were responded to. However, we observed some nice interactions between staff and people.

Leaders discussed the importance of the workforce and how they considered their wellbeing. They spoke about the importance of communication and team morale. Staff we spoke with felt supported by the home, and said it was a good place to work.

There were systems in place to consider staff wellbeing and they felt valued by the support they received from the leaders.