Duke Street Bungalows

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners 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 provider treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

People and relatives were happy with the care they received. One person told us, “I like the staff, they are my friends. [Staff name] is the best”. A relative said, “They are always kind and caring and offer her choice”. Another told us, “He's content with all the staff”. People who were unable to tell us about their experiences appeared comfortable with staff, shaking their hands and reaching out to staff members when they went into rooms. We saw people went over to staff when they needed support or assistance. Staff interacted well with people and spoke positively with them.

We saw people’s dignity and privacy was respected during our inspection, when people were using bathrooms, doors were closed. One person was having a sleep on their bed and staff asked if they would like the door open or closed. Staff spoke about people respectfully and knew them well. Staff emphasised the importance of being kind and caring to people.

The provider’s systems did not always ensure people were treated as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

People and relatives felt their needs and preferences were considered. A relative told us, “They know him inside and out”.

People had the opportunity to attend activities and social events that they enjoyed and that relatives felt were beneficial. For example, people went on various day trips, visited local café’s, pubs and shops, went for walks and visited family and those that were important to them. However further improvements were needed to ensure all activities were delivered in a person centred way in line with the right support, right care, right culture guidance. For example, a group swimming session had taken place where several people had attended. The registered manager told us people had chosen to participate in this and it was a trial to see if they enjoyed it and to see if it was something people would like to do more often. It was unclear why people had attended as a group and not individually, which would mean support would have been delivered more individually and specifically for each individual person. We spoke with the registered manager who told us this was something they could consider in the future. We found similar concerns for other activities, including when people had gone on holidays and day trips with other people. We also found some people participated in activities on a 1 to 1 basis.

People’s cultural needs were considered. Relatives spoke positively about this. One relative said, “He doesn't eat meat on a Sunday or a Tuesday. They know this and adhere to that”. Another commented, “The Punjabi [staff] they make Dahl and rice and mashed potatoes. She likes that”. Another relative confirmed, “They take her to the temple”. People had care plans in place that identified their individual cultural needs, we saw people had various religious items in their bedrooms which were important to them, and they had the opportunity to attend their local place of worship regularly.

The provider did not always ensure that people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing

People were not always fully in control of their lives. When people were unable to verbally communicate, they had communication plans in place showing how or what their actions may mean. However, there was not always detail about how they could be involved, or make decisions in their lives or choices. Improvements were needed to ensure this information was clear. In 1 person’s care file, it said ‘I can make everyday choices with assistance from my support workers. They are aware of my preferred communication methods and knowledge of how I make choices and decisions regarding food, clothing and where I would like to go out and about.’ Although staff knew people well, the care plan did not contain this detailed information and records did not always show people’s involvement.

People were offered choices, however these were sometimes limited. For example, we saw recorded in 1 person’s care plan they preferred a specific branded cereal or porridge for their breakfast. On the day of the inspection they were verbally offered this and the staff interpreted that their preference that day was the specific branded cereal. We viewed the daily notes for this person, and we saw most days they had this for breakfast. Their care plan told us they liked other foods for breakfast which they were not offered that day, and staff did not consider offering something outside of the person ‘usual’ choice. This meant people may not always have the opportunity to make varied choices.

Other people made day to day choices around what they did, what they ate and the activities they participated in, we saw 1 person doing some sewing which they told us they enjoyed. Some people could access the kitchen to make their own meals.

People’s independence was encouraged and promoted, people were encouraged to do daily tasks for themselves and care plans contained detail around the levels of support people may receive. We saw 1 person take their laundry into their bedroom and another person told us they liked to make their bed with staff. Relatives spoke positively about how staff supported people to remain independent. One relative said, “She couldn't even hang a clothes hanger up before. Even showering. She's got more independent now”.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes.

People and relatives felt their needs were responded to. A relative told us, “They take her to the doctor and dentist. If there are any changes, they let me know”.

People’s needs were responded to promptly and when needed, changes to how their care was delivered had been made. For example, when changes had been identified to people’s diets, referrals to the relevant health professional had been made and when a person was displaying symptoms of pain following an injury, the home was continually seeking support from health professionals the person for this. However, improvements were needed to ensure changes were always reflected in people’s care plans and risk assessments.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff spoke positively about the registered manager and the support they received.

The registered manager told us how they valued their staff. They told us they operated an open-door policy and introduced a ‘Fancy a chat’ where staff could drop in and discuss concerns more formally. The provider had systems in place to consider staff wellbeing, this included an employee assist programme and champions in various areas including the menopause and where staff may need support with their wellbeing or mental health. Staff had access to relevant policies and procedures which supported their well-being.