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 Inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.There were new staff working in the service; however, the core staff team knew people well and their day-to-day preferences were respected. New staff told us they were given time to get to know people. Relatives gave us examples where they felt staff had shown kindness and empathy. One relative told us that staff had purchased an item which gave the person much comfort emotionally following the loss of a beloved pet. Another told us of a breakfast celebration to celebrate a milestone birthday. A relative told us, “[Relative] is [age] this month and still has all their faculties, so the fact that [relative] likes things done the way they like things done, has been totally accepted and respected by the carers. In fact, they have picked up on [relatives] quirks beautifully.” Daily logs showed that people choosing to stay in their rooms were visited regularly by staff. A staff member told us, “I go up and take the activities to [person]. I sometimes give them a massage. [Person] doesn’t always want to do the activities, I think [person] just likes the company, so I sit with them for 10 mins.’’

The provider treated people as individuals and ensured their care, support, and treatment reflected their needs and preferences.The service provided sufficient time for new staff to develop relationships with people, their families, friends and other carers. Our discussions with new staff confirmed this. One staff member said, “I have time to read the care plans and speak to people.” People’s communication needs were documented, however, the level of detail varied with some being very descriptive, and others quite basic. Staff generally knew people well and understood their preferences. However, further work was needed to ensure personalised records were consistently maintained. This included care plans and daily notes, to ensure they fully reflected people’s individual needs and preferences.

People’s bedrooms were decorated according to their preferences and were person centred. Although religion was not always reflected fully in people’s care plans, people had opportunities to enable them to practice their religion, including visits to the home by representatives of the church. One relative said, “I did notice that on Remembrance Sunday the [residents] were in front of the new big screen watching the service. I don’t think that has happened before and yet it relates to their age group.” Another said, “There are now photos on the bedroom doors and also a staff notice board in the entrance which shows pictures of all the staff with their names. Very helpful.”

The provider promoted people’s independence. People were involved in decision making on a day-to-day basis, for example, what they would like to do, eat, wear etc.We also saw in daily notes that people’s independence was promoted when completing tasks such as personal care. We observed planned activities while we were onsite in the communal areas, and for people who wished to stay in their rooms, we were assured they were included. One relative told us, “I have noticed that some [residents] who never left their rooms before have now started to appear and join in with activities which are happening morning and afternoon throughout the week.” We received mostly positive feedback from relatives in relation to activities in the service. One relative told us, “There is music, karaoke, games, exercise, ping pong ball into a net. In fact, it’s good to see they have come up with a lot of different things that are interesting to a wider range of abilities.”

People were supported to maintain and develop their relationships with those close to them. People had free access to their family, friends and community to promote and support their independence, health and wellbeing.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded promptly to call bells during the inspection. Handover discussions showed staff sharing information when people’s needs changed. Referrals were made when people needed external professionals such as mental health or falls prevention teams. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. However, on 1 occasion we found staff did not display a sympathetic approach when one person was found crying. Staff responded to us with, “[Person] always does this”, which did not seem appropriate towards a person who was clearly distressed. The registered manager was undertaking observations of staff practice to ensure any concerns were addressed promptly

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff were positive about working for the provider and the support they received. One staff member said, “It’s one of the nicest homes I’ve worked in and I’ve worked in several.’’ When asked about the registered manager another staff member commented, “[Registered manager] has a listening ear. They make themself available.’’ We observed the provider interacting with people and staff regularly throughout the inspection. They sat and had lunch with people and staff were available to support them with lunch. Staff confirmed there were opportunities to feedback, such as meetings. Staff confirmed they had regular supervision but when looking at supervision notes we found little evidence of meaningful conversation.