Prideaux 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 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.

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. Although most interactions we observed between staff and people were positive with kindness and empathy being shown by staff, we did observe one situation where a staff member raised their voice to a person. We noticed that people were all wearing clothing protectors to protect their clothing when eating and drinking but that these were then not removed when mealtimes ended. It was not clear why this happened although there was nothing to indicate that people requested to continue wearing clothing protectors. Some relatives, who visited the service regularly, have told us they had seen negative interactions when visiting with staff not supporting people in a dignified way, raising their voice and responding impatiently when people did not respond immediately to their questions or requests. Other relatives however told us, “Staff are lovely” and “Staff are kind and their (people’s) dignity is looked after.” Professionals that visited the service told us that during their visits they had only ever witnessed positive support being provided with people being treated kindly.

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.During the past 12 months the service had experienced a high turnover of staff. Due to this, not all staff knew people well and some had yet to learn people’s likes, dislikes, preferred routines and the ways in which they wanted to be supported. We observed a person being supported to have their teeth brushed. The person was semi-prone in bed and the staff were carrying out the task in a forceful way with the person clearly uncomfortable. This was brought to the attention of the staff involved. Care plans relating to some people’s personal care and support, described how people needed time to respond to requests from staff, stressing the importance of staff being patient and taking their time with people. Interactions we saw were rushed, there were enough staff on duty, but they were not spending time with people long enough to understand their needs.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People were encouraged and supported to be as independent as safely possible. People that were able to mobilise independently were able to move around the service and chose where they wanted to spend time, in their rooms or in communal areas with others. Staff were aware of the importance for people to maintain their independence with daily tasks for example, washing and dressing and being able to choose what clothes they wanted to wear. A member of staff said, “We encourage people. Even the simplest things like giving someone a flannel.” Relatives confirmed that their loved ones were encouraged to continue achieving some tasks with one telling us, “They make sure (person) is as independent as can be. Active and involved.”

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. People’s needs were not consistently met. A person who was unable to eat the meal provided was not given an alternative for nearly an hour despite staff being aware of the situation. Some responses to people were done in a timely way but this was not consistent. We saw staff attending to some people’s needs for example, if they wanted to move from one place to another or if they were uncomfortable and needed help to re-position. Call bells were responded to quickly. Comments from relatives included, “There are plenty of staff and they do go to her when she calls or asks for things” and “I’ve seen if a person gets up, they are joined by staff straight always and they walk with them to where they want to go. Staff work with them.” The registered manager told us that most people congregated in the communal lounge during the day and that there was a minimum of 2 staff present during these times.

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. Feedback from staff was mixed relating to the support they received from the registered manager and their approach to their welfare and wellbeing. Some staff told us that requests for support inside and outside of work had been ignored or not acted on by the registered manager which had caused them difficulties in achieving a positive work life balance. Some staff also told us that the registered manager was often short with them and could be dismissive when approached for help. It was noted that the service had a recent high turnover of staff with 15 leaving in the past 12 months. Although the registered manager carried out exit interviews when people left, it had not been possible to identify any themes for why people were leaving although the registered manager did tell us that staff morale was currently low. The registered manager told us, “Generally the mood is good but complaints recently have brought the mood down. It is because we do care.” Other staff told us that they were happy and that the working environment was positive with staff getting on well together and that the registered manager was supportive. There had been some social events arranged by the registered manager but these had been poorly attended.