Sutherlands 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 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

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 always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Whilst we observed some positive interactions from staff, we also observed staff ignoring people, moving people in their chairs without speaking to them or asking their consent. People were taken to join activities without being asked if they wanted to. We also observed 1 person had been supported to dress and staff had not noticed their trousers were on back to front. We observed another person sitting in a chair with their catheter bag visible. This meant people’s dignity was not always upheld. One person told us, “The young ones, [staff], don’t always behave very well around people with dementia. They laugh at them sometimes.” Despite our observations, we received some positive feedback from people and relatives. A relative said, “[Staff] have huge understanding and are so kind and caring considering [person] says horrible things to them sometimes.” One person said, “most of [staff] are ok,” and, “The staff here are very nice.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. Some risk assessments were generic or restrictive and did not consider people’s strengths. For example, the courtyard risk assessment was the same for each person, with an outcome that everyone needed to be supervised when in the courtyard, despite some people being independent and not at high risk of falls. Another risk assessment stated toiletries needed to be secured in bathrooms with a child proof style lock on cabinets. Risk assessments did not focus on positive risk taking or explore other options to ensure they were least restrictive and most appropriate for each individual.

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. People did not have free access to food/drinks. There were no facilities for people to help themselves and therefore they were reliant on staff. Two lounges had kitchenette areas, however, all the doors to the cupboards were locked. One staff member said, “[Person] would be able to make their own drinks, but we don’t let them in the kitchen, we stop them going in. I think they could safely make their own drink if given the opportunity. Having to stop them from making it takes away their independence.”

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. During our inspection there were occasions where we observed people call out for support and staff walked past and ignored them. However, we observed call bells were responded to promptly and people told us they didn’t have to wait long for support.

The provider did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff did not feel valued by the provider. For example, there were no rest facilities for staff. Staff could only take their breaks in a small corridor area or outside in the smoking area. Staff told us they did not get paid for their e-learning training they completed as part of their induction unless they were on shift. The manager told us they would consider repurposing a room in the service to enable staff to have a rest area.