St Gregory's House Limited

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 of this key question, we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People were treated with kindness. People and relatives told us staff were polite, caring and respectful. Staff knew people’s wishes and preferences and the culture in the home was seen to be caring. Some staff were observed to offer explanations and reassurances to people when undertaking tasks. Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with people showed that they were respectful and responsive when supporting people. However, on occasions staff were observed to miss opportunities to talk to and interact with people.

One person told us, “The staff are always kind to me and I am well looked after.” A relative said, “The staff are very gentle with my relative and responds well to them.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff treated people as individuals, were considerate of people’s protected characteristics and supported their personal, cultural, social and religious needs. People were given choice in relation to their individual preferences and needs. We found that staff were supportive of people’s requests and needs. One person told us, “I make all my own choices, whether it’s my clothes or what I do during the day.” Another person said, “I need a lot of help, but I am always asked what I want.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. However, there were not enough meaningful activities made available to people.

Where people were cared for in their rooms, risks of social isolation had been identified. However, recordings of how this was managed were not always evident. A member of care staff also undertook the role of the activity’s coordinator within the home. People told us and we observed there were no regular meaningful activities. We observed most people were sitting in the lounge with the television on during our visit. People were not actively engaged.

The management team told us the provider had recognised that additional resources were required to meet the needs of the people residing at the service. A relative told us, “My relative does enjoy activities, and I think there could be more. Just watching TV is not enough.” People were supported to maintain relationships with others, and we saw that visitors came and went as they chose to.

People’s independence was actively promoted where relevant. People were supported to have choice and control over aspects of their day-to-day care. An example of this was people being given mealtimes choices. Picture cards were available for people to see the menu choices of the day.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People’s urgent needs were recognised and dealt with. Where people could not communicate effectively staff demonstrated they knew them well and recognised when they needed support to minimise discomfort. Relatives told us if people needed assistance staff responded quickly. Several people who could not use their call bell to request assistance, were supported by staff who made regular checks on people instead. However, not all peoples care plans identified this as a risk.

The provider supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care. However, staff had not always experienced the same support with their wellbeing due to late payments of their wages.

All staff spoken to commented about delays in payment of their wages. Staff had felt able to raise this with management and felt able to do so again in the future if necessary. Staff told us they did not always have the equipment or resources required to do their jobs which meant that there were times when care notes were delayed in being updated. Staff stated they thought there were always sufficient staff on duty so their workload was manageable.

Staff felt able to raise concerns or issues they had with management and also felt confident that any concerns raised would be dealt with appropriately. Staff were not always clear about the different roles that people in management had and this was partly due to the new management structure which had just recently been put in place. Overseas staff we spoke with told us they felt very supported and told us they enjoyed working for the service.