Archived: Rodney House Care 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 inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to ensuring people were 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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Some people had a noticeable poor body odour. We observed several people were visibly unclean and dishevelled in appearance. For example, some people had matted hair, others had long nails and were wearing dirty and stained clothing. There were inadequate bathing and shower facilities due to ongoing water pressure and temperature issues. Some baths were out of use as they needed to be re-enamelled, and the adapted bath had been removed, but not replaced. Action was being taken at the time of our assessment to refurbish shower and bathing facilities, however, the planning of this work failed to ensure adequate facilities were always available which meant people did not receive the level of personal care they needed. Some of the bathrooms were very sparse in appearance and only had a bath. There was very limited space for people to sit down, or store their towels, toiletries and clean clothing. This did not promote a dignified and relaxing bathing experience. One person was walking around with a hole in their clothing which showed their underwear. We observed staff on duty did not react or encourage the person to change their clothing to preserve their dignity.

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. Blanket approaches were taken such as a lack of availability of ceramic plates and cups. Some staff told us this was because people may throw them, however, risk assessments and care plans did not assess or reflect this. At breakfast time we observed people eating toast off pieces of foil. Some people, who were wheelchair users were balancing this and a hot drink on their laps in the reception area. There were adequate stocks of plates, but these were not being offered to people for use. Some people preferred to eat in their bedroom. We again observed toast served in foil and sandwiches served in clingfilm. No plates were offered to people in their bedrooms. Some people told us there was lack of choice regarding food. Feedback about the food on offer included, “It’s okay, you don’t get a choice of food, just what we are given” and “The food is not very good. You get what you are given.” Specific religious and cultural needs of people were known and recorded within peoples care plans.

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. There was a lack of activities available for people to engage in. This placed people at risk of social isolation. Feedback from people included, “There is nothing to do here apart from watch television and sit around,” “I don’t do any activities, just sleep” and “I don’t know what there is to do here. There are no activities.” There was a pool table, however, this was not full size and both people and staff told us it was not easily accessible for people who used a wheelchair due to the low height. We did not observe anyone use the pool table throughout our assessment. There was a lack of support to motivate people to try new experiences. One person told us they wanted to access a cultural centre. However, they said there were no staff to support them adding, “I would do more and like to go if someone would go with me, as I need support when I meet people outside.” Some people needed equipment, such as a commode to aid their independence. However, fully functioning commodes where not always available to people. This meant people had to seek support from staff to access the toilet facilities, which minimised their independence and compromised their privacy.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. People told us they waited a significant amount of time, between an hour and an hour and a half to have their call bell responded to if they sought staff assistance. One person had been moved from their bedroom to another room in response to a safeguarding concern. However, staff had not considered if this was the most appropriate way to mitigate the risk for the person and had not considered the suitability or cleanliness of the room or ensured their personal belongings had been moved with them to help them adapt to this change. A staff member did not respond appropriately to people requesting cigarettes or alcohol from the reception desk. One person was dismissed and told to ‘come back later’ whilst another person was told they didn’t have any cigarettes. Both interactions lacked empathy and created a hostile and volatile environment. The staff member did not try to reassure or seek to establish any solutions with people which could have reduced their levels of anxiety. One person told us they didn’t feel staff care about their needs. We observed the person sat in their bedroom with no cushion on their seat, no television on and no batteries in their remote control. When asked if they wanted us to alert staff, the person commented, “They won’t buy me a new one, nobody cares.”

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. Some staff told us the provider did not always consider their welfare when developing rotas. Staff said they worked long hours their shifts could be stressful and at times volatile. Staff told us they didn’t always feel safe at work due to the behaviours displayed by some of the people who lived in Rodney House Care Home. Staff told us they had not received training in how to deal with such situations. Staff told us the opportunities to develop and promotion was limited. One staff member commented, “I wouldn’t say I have been offered a lot of chances to progress.”