North Bay House

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 that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Inadequate. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 35 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion. We observed that members of staff were individually kind and caring when they interacted with people, however, they were mostly task focussed. When we spoke to people about whether members of staff were kind and caring, there was a mixed response. One person said, “99% of the time, yes. There’s one [care worker] I don’t like. [Care worker] has a rather curt manner bordering on rude.” Another told us, “Apart from being sharp with me about fluids, they’re okay.” A relative told us, “[Staff] are kind, respectful and above all caring. They’re a good team.”

People’s care records did not always contain information about people’s personal history, backgrounds and goals. This information helps people to have their needs met by staff who understand the context of their experiences.

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, and aspirations.

People’s care records lacked information about people’s likes, dislikes, interests, abilities and wishes and did not contain detailed information of how they liked to receive care and support. Care plans did not always contain sufficient guidance for staff to manage specific conditions and enable them to provide consistent and effective support to people. For example, people living with dementia had no detailed information in their care plans to support staff to understand how their dementia impacted them as a person and how to support them through their dementia journey. People did not have access to meaningful stimulation or activities on a day to day basis. Records of activity for people we reviewed, showed several days where no activity had been recorded, and where it had been, there was no information on the benefits and outcome of the activity for the individual. This helps staff to identify what makes a difference for people so they can continue to provide individualised activities.

We saw that activities were not always tailored to people living with dementia. People had limited access to dementia friendly items or tactile objects to keep them engaged and stimulated.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We could not be assured people’s choices and wishes were respected or that they were supported to be independent. This was because people’s care records did not contain personalised and up to date information, lacked detail about their likes and dislikes and did not include personalised information of what was important to them. Care records did not always make clear what decisions people could make for themselves. For example, decisions about meals or drinks, or what to wear, and therefore records did not place focus on encouraging independent decision making even at a basic level.

We observed that staff were very busy with care tasks, so had limited opportunity to support people with activities. One staff member said, “If there is 1 thing that could be improved here it’s the activities for [people].” During the inspection we spent time observing people in communal areas, often sitting in silence. We saw very limited evidence of any activity taking place.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress, to prevent avoid any preventable discomfort, concern or distress.

Staffing levels did not support the ability to respond promptly. For example, there had been a number of falls in the service, we were concerned that staff were not always available to notice when someone was starting to look unsteady on their feet and immediately offer support to prevent that person from stumbling or falling. When we walked around the home on the upper floors, often no staff were visible to monitor people’s safety or respond promptly should a person be in immediate need. On each occasion we walked through the communal lounge people asked us for help in the absence of staff. One person told us, “I don’t think there are enough staff. The staff are run-ragged. They do stop and chat now and then, but they’re always wanted elsewhere.” Another said, “We can wait as much as 15 minutes at night.”

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Due to the limited information within some care records in relation to people’s specific needs, and the gaps in training provided to staff, we could not be assured staff were supported or enabled to deliver person-centred care.

Staff we spoke with told us they liked working at North Bay House, and they felt that the provider valued them. However, we also received anonymous feedback from staff that they did not feel valued, and that they were unhappy in their roles. Staff all confirmed there were opportunities to feedback, such as staff meetings which were held on a regular basis. Staff also confirmed they received supervision sessions on a 1-2-1 basis. Although staff we spoke to told us they felt the staffing levels were mostly sufficient, we observed that staff were very busy with little time to interact with people in a meaningful way, due to the workload. The provider ensured that staff had a rest area with access to kitchen facilities.