Archived: Marland Court

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (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. One person we spoke with spoke positively about staff and said, “[Staff are] really nice; everyone is very kind.”However, we saw some people were poorly presented; one person wore ill-fitting clothes that exposed their midriff. The manager told us they had gained weight and therefore their clothes were too small. We did not see any evidence that this had been communicated and discussed with relatives so that more appropriate clothing could be provided.

Another person was seen wearing poorly fitting trousers that were too big; these were trailing the floor and needed to be constantly held up by the individual when they were walking around. This was not dignified for the person. The manager indicated this was the person’s choice of clothing, but these choices and preferences were not recorded or reflected in care planning documents. No attempts had been made to help restore people’s dignity.

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

One person chose to leave the home daily and spend time in the community with friends; their first language was not English. Some consideration had been given to this, for example a personal evacuation plan (PEEP) had been provided in their own language. Some staff were able to communicate with the person as they could speak basic Punjabi, but more needed to be done to create a more person-centred experience and encourage the person to stay in their home.

Blanket, generic risk assessments were in place for people, some of which were irrelevant; for example, one person had a risk assessment in relation to smoking when they had never smoked. The service had not properly considered people’s individual needs.

A person we spoke with considered staff were patient and listened to them. They told us, “I like Chinese food; they’ve ordered [Chinese] ready meals for me.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. On our first day of inspection there was an activities co-ordinator in the service, although there was little evidence of any specific activities taking place. Take up for activities and entertainment was limited; partly due to people’s health conditions and lifestyles. People were not openly encouraged to participate in any planned activities. One person left the home on a daily basis and spent the day with friends in the community, as this was their preference.

There was no detail recorded in daily notes about activities people had participated in over the course of a day. There was also a lack of weekly planning in place for some people to ensure they knew what activities were due to happen, offering people things to look forward to. On our second day of assessment the activities co-ordinator was off sick, and unlikely to return to work in the home. There were no contingency plans in place for their absence.

At the time of this assessment a young person was being nursed in bed as there wasn’t the appropriate equipment in place to support with manual handling. The manager indicated there was a wait for an assessment by an occupational therapist, although this was not reflected in the care plan. A copy of the referral was requested after our on site visit; this was dated 14 February 2025. This delay negatively impacted the person as it resulted in an extended period of being nursed in bed and limited choice and control in their daily life.

A pet dog belonging to the regional manager visited the care home on a regular basis; we were told this was a therapy dog but saw no evidence of this. A risk assessment was in place. We were not assured the dog was in the home for the benefit of people living there. We found some food the dog had picked off the floor, chewed and discarded in an empty bedroom and made management aware of this.

There were plans to develop the outside area and install planters so that people could do some gardening and grow some vegetables. People enjoyed an entertainer in the afternoon of the second day of the onsite assessment. We saw people participating in the singing and dancing, some after having been encouraged by staff; people obviously enjoyed the entertainment.

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 or concern. Staff did not always check if people were ok. We saw occasions when people were walking around, potentially needing help and support but this was not readily offered.

We observed staff being positive and engaging during their caring interactions, however staff were extremely busy and did not always have the time to sit and chat with people or to help people eat.

When asked for evidence of call bell audits, we were told data could not be extracted from the call bell system. There was no evidence to assure us people received timely and appropriate support as the provider could not monitor response times.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.