Tamar 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 outstanding. 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.

This service scored 55 (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.

Relatives shared serious concerns about dignity not always being upheld. These included people being left wet, distressed or inadequately supported with personal care, and occasions where people were left in their rooms for long periods.

We received mixed feedback from people, one person said they had no concerns with how they were treated, however another said, “Some staff ignore me when I need support”.

During the inspection we observed a generally calm and friendly atmosphere, and most people appeared settled. Staff responded quickly to call bells and acted promptly when people’s health deteriorated. Some relatives told us carers were kind, reassuring and supported people respectfully during personal care.

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.

Although improvements were starting through the introduction of systems such as resident of the day reviews, care plans still did not consistently reflect what mattered to people or provide staff with clear, person‑centred guidance.

We received mixed feedback from relatives in relation to staff knowing people’s needs and preferences. Comments included, “(Person’s name) was on the commode naked with two carers stood beside her. Not dignified at all, why was (Person’s name) naked and why was she not in the bathroom”, and “Carers are very supportive with maintaining her dignity and keeping (Person’s name) well maintained in the way she likes. She always has help from the female carers as this is her preference”.

Staff were able to tell us about how to uphold people’s privacy and dignity.

The provider promoted people’s choice and control over their day.

We observed planned activities while we were onsite in the communal areas and for people who wished to stay in their rooms. We also observed people accessing outside garden spaces for fresh air.

We also observed people being offered choice in relation to meals.

We received mostly positive feedback from relatives in relation to activities in the service. Comments included, “They do have a social calendar for activities. Once a fortnight a lady comes in with a therapy dog. They hatched 9 chickens around easter time”, and “(Person’s name) loves the activities that are put on there. The bingo, the talks from a professor who comes in and talks about their travels around the world, crafty stuff, cooking. So much for her to do every day. Something for everybody”.

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

Records and relatives’ feedback showed delays in responding to deterioration, pain management and continence needs. We received mixed feedback from relatives in relation to responding quickly to people’s needs to minimise distress. One relative told us, “(Person’s name) health deteriorated”. This comment came from a relative who explained this was due to health concerns not being identified and escalated.

Staff responded promptly to call bells during the inspection. Handover discussions showed staff sharing information when people’s needs changed.

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.

Staff told us they were committed to people and enjoyed their roles, and several said they felt more supported since the current manager took up post. One staff member told us, “I would have left a long time ago if it wasn’t for my duty of care to them (people living at the home)”.

Staff reported morale was improving with the support of the current manager, however, the instability of management and lack of involvement from the provider was affecting the quality of care being provided and causing anxiety. One staff member told us, “It has been a real impact to my mental health. Going in every day raising concerns and being ignored. I feel better now (Manager’s name) is here and listening and responding to us”. Some staff reported raising concerns in relation to wages and these concerns not being acknowledged or managed.

Staff recognised and spoke positively about the support provided by the current manager. However, staff told us they had observed the provider managing a situation in a way they felt was unprofessional and insensitive. Staff reported that this created unnecessary anxiety and contributed to an unsettled and uncertain working environment.

New training and development sessions have recently been introduced, including champion roles.