Alt Park Nursing 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 the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness,dignity and respect. At our last assessment 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.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations in relation to treating people with dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (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. People were not supported to maintain their personal appearance resulting in them looking unkempt. Our observations found several people were visibly unkempt, had unclean fingernails and were wearing unclean clothing and shoes. For example, a person was observed wearing a pair of unclean shoes with no socks and no laces or innersoles within the shoes. This did not promote this person’s dignity.

People were living in an environment that was not clean or well maintained. The standard of the environment failed to uphold dignity and respect. For example, we observed unclean bedding, unclean toothbrushes and scuffed and stained décor. We found people’s beds were not made appropriately. For example, for 1 person we found a duvet cover with popper closers had been used as a sheet. We found a cushion was placed inside a pillowcase to serve as a pillow. This was not respectful and did not promote people’s dignity.

We shared our concerns with the registered manager who was receptive to our feedback. When we returned for the second day, people’s personal hygiene had significantly improved, and new slippers and shoes had been purchased for many people. We found people’s bedrooms were cleaner and people’s personal possessions were stored in a more respectful manner.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The environment failed to respect individuality. People’s names were not always written on doors and there were limited personal touches in some people’s bedrooms to reflect people’s individual identities or to allow people living with dementia to independently navigate their environment. The provider shared details of a redecoration programme to improve the environment which included involving people in the individual design and decoration of their bedrooms.

A relative provided positive feedback about how staff respected their loved one’s individuality as they made an effort to understand their cultural needs, beliefs and background.

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. Care planning records did not always evidence people were supported to make choices about their care and treatment. For 2 people, we were not assured staff always followed people’s preferred communication methods that were outlined in their communication care plans. This increased the risk that care would not be consistent with people’s needs or preferences.

All people and relatives provided negative feedback regarding activities within the home. Relatives told us, "They just leave her in the chair and often wearing someone else’s clothes" and "Nobody interacts with any of them." Our observations found periods where there was minimal engagement and a lack of social stimulation.

We shared our findings with the registered manager who told us they did not have a permanent activities coordinator and recruitment for this role was ongoing. They told us they had invested in a digital wellness and activities platform. However, we did not see this being used during the assessment visits.

Staff did not always respond appropriately to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. We were not assured timely action was taken in relation to skin integrity concerns. Our observations found 3 people were in significant discomfort with symptoms relating to ongoing skin conditions. A person told us their hands were “Itchy and sore.” We were not assured timely action was taken to contact the GP to ensure their health was reviewed and an appropriate treatment plan devised. The failure to act in a timely way increased the risk of people experiencing distress and discomfort for longer than was necessary. In addition, staff did not always engage appropriately with people, which placed them at risk of their needs not being met.

We shared our concerns with the provider, and we were assured action was taken to contact health professionals and obtain the necessary treatment. When we returned for the second day, people’s symptoms had significantly improved.

The registered manager cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Support mechanisms were in place for staff and all staff we spoke with told us they felt valued, supported in their roles and were proud to work at the home. Comments included, “I sit down and have one to one supervision every month”, “[Registered Manager] is supportive and approachable anytime, any day” and “I have never seen someone [Registered Manager] who makes so much time for you, can discuss anything, he’s so approachable."