Margaret's Rest Home

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 Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to restrictive practices.

This service scored 50 (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, or respect their privacy and dignity. We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives on this subject. Most people felt that they were treated with kindness and staff were polite. One person said, “They (staff) are nice all the time”.

Relatives felt there were some staff who were not kind or polite. One relative said, “One or two people have been brusk in their attitude towards me”. Another relative felt that the response to their concerns were not very compassionate, this was after they found their relative (person) in an undignified manner when visiting one day.

During our assessment, we observed lots of positive interactions between staff, people, relatives and visiting professionals. We did a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) observation, for people that were not able to share their feedback with us. We observed multiple positive interactions.

However, we also observed some negative interactions between staff and people, for example, a staff member becoming verbally frustrated towards a person who was asking to go for a cigarette.

All visiting professionals we spoke to during our inspection had no concerns in regard to people’s treatment by staff.

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

We saw evidence of people being supported to maintain their independence. For example, people were able to take risks where they understood them. There was a smoking area for people that was enclosed and in view of the senior’s desk through a window. Staff had quick access to the area should the person need help. This meant they could go out for a cigarette independently, but their safety could be maintained.

We saw evidence that information was adapted to meet people’s communication needs, however, we were not assured that this was taking place for all people that needed it. For example, some people and staff speak the same language, so those staff were utilised to verbally translate consent forms, so the person knew what they were agreeing too. There was little evidence of other adaptations such as in picture form or easy read for those who needed it.

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

We saw evidence of people being supported to maintain their independence. For example, people were able to take risks where they understood them. There was a smoking area for people that was enclosed and in view of the senior’s desk through a window. Staff had quick access to the area should the person need help. This meant they could go out for a cigarette independently, but their safety could be maintained.

We saw evidence that information was adapted to meet people’s communication needs, however, we were not assured that this was taking place for all people that needed it. For example, some people and staff speak the same language, so those staff were utilised to verbally translate consent forms, so the person knew what they were agreeing too. There was little evidence of other adaptations such as in picture form or easy read for those who needed it.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. During our assessment, we saw evidence of tri-monthly supervisions taking place where wellbeing was a subject as part of the agenda, however, the forms were short, and staff reported their supervisions were vague and not effective. One person shared that on one occasion, they weren’t aware they were having a supervision until afterwards when they were asked to sign a form.

We received mixed feedback from staff about team meetings, some felt that they were ineffective with no actions as a result, whereas others found them very useful.

Some staff felt supported in their role, however, most staff reported they did not feel supported. Some shared that confidentiality is often broken when they reach out for support for private and personal matters. The provider was not aware of this until our final feedback to them so had not been able to address this at the time. We were not assured that this issue would be taken seriously and addressed in a fair and equitable way.

The provider did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Most staff reported that they were happy with the training they had received, and felt they were equipped to do their job whilst others felt the format wasn’t effective enough as it was all E-Learning, and that there were subjects they hadn’t covered. Some staff shared that when they had requested additional training that would in turn, positively impact the people and enable staff to provide more person-centred care, they were told it would be investigated, but no action was taken. The provider had started sourcing face to face training just prior to our inspection, this included First Aid and Epilepsy training which some staff had just completed the week our inspection began.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. During our assessment, we saw evidence of tri-monthly supervisions taking place where wellbeing was a subject as part of the agenda, however, the forms were short, and staff reported their supervisions were vague and not effective. One person shared that on one occasion, they weren’t aware they were having a supervision until afterwards when they were asked to sign a form.

We received mixed feedback from staff about team meetings, some felt that they were ineffective with no actions as a result, whereas others found them very useful.

Some staff felt supported in their role, however, most staff reported they did not feel supported. Some shared that confidentiality is often broken when they reach out for support for private and personal matters. The provider was not aware of this until our final feedback to them so had not been able to address this at the time. We were not assured that this issue would be taken seriously and addressed in a fair and equitable way.

The provider did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Most staff reported that they were happy with the training they had received, and felt they were equipped to do their job whilst others felt the format wasn’t effective enough as it was all E-Learning, and that there were subjects they hadn’t covered. Some staff shared that when they had requested additional training that would in turn, positively impact the people and enable staff to provide more person-centred care, they were told it would be investigated, but no action was taken. The provider had started sourcing face to face training just prior to our inspection, this included First Aid and Epilepsy training which some staff had just completed the week our inspection began.