Castletroy Residential 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 the legal regulations in relation to safeguarding and person centred care.

This service scored 45 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

People were not treated in a dignified or compassionate way. Records showed that when people showed distress and physically resisted staff support during personal care and hoist transfers, staff continued to provide care. The provider failed to ensure this physical intervention was appropriately assessed or recorded. No care plans or risk assessments had been completed to guide staff in providing this care and records of interventions were poorly completed. There was no assurance that the actions taken by staff were proportionate, and the least restrictive option carried out in people’s best interest. The failure to have safeguards in place to mitigate the risks of restricting people’s movement during personal care and moving and handling meant people did not receive care that upheld their dignity and placed people at risk of harm.

Staff did not always use respectful language or respond to people with empathy and compassion. We heard one member of staff refer to people who were able to mobilise independently as ‘walkers’ and mimic a person who was distressed. This did not demonstrate compassion or respect for the person.

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

Individual staff were kind and caring and people received support from staff who knew them well. However, lack of training meant that staff were not always able to provide appropriate care and support. Improvements required to the system in place for care planning and risk assessment impacted the ability of staff to provide care that met people's individual needs.

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.

Our findings in relation to consent to ‘care and treatment’ meant the service did not always promote people's rights, choice and control. For example, people’s freedom of movement was being mechanically restricted by securing them in their seat using a lap belt, this had not been appropriately assessed and people’s capacity to consent to this had not been considered. Many people in the home were seated in mobile chairs and wearing lap belts. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were completed for the use of lap belts; however, these only addressed their use to prevent falls when people were being wheeled in the chairs. We saw lap belts were in place all the time people were seated in the chairs, including when the chairs were stationary.

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

Our findings in relation to consent to ‘care and treatment’ meant the service did not always act appropriately to minimise distress. Staff continued to provide support to people with personal care and hoisting when people were distressed and actively resisting this, no assessments were in place to ensure this was in people’s best interest.

However, we observed staff responding appropriately to people’s needs during the inspection, people had access to their call bells and when people used their call bell to request assistance, staff responded promptly. People’s relatives told us staff responded effectively to people’s needs, one person’s relative said, “They react to new problems well. I always feel reassured by the staff.”

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt supported and had regular team meetings and supervisions where they could discuss their job roles, and any support they needed. The provider valued staff, and staff told us they felt well supported. One member of staff said, “It’s like my second family here, very supportive.”