Archived: St Audrey's

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 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 regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People received kind and compassionate care from staff. A person told us, “I’m happy. I haven’t any complaints. [Staff are] friendly.” A relative said, “I am aware of the CQC report. I speak to the staff and question them too. I feel reassured and I believe they are doing a good job. The staff are absolutely lovely.” Another relative told us, “My [relative] has insisted on a female carer, and they always do provide that.”

Most staff told us they would be happy for their relatives to receive support from the service. A staff member said, I have seen genuine care, compassion and dedication of staff.”

A professional told us, “I have seen good compassionate interactions with residents.”

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.

People’s care records lacked detail about their cultural, social and religious needs. This meant there was not information on people’s interests to guide staff to support social interactions. We observed minimal interactions from staff in the lounge with people. A relative confirmed the lack of activity was a typical day but also told us, “Generally there is a member of staff in [the lounge] most of the time. [Staff] comes in and does quizzes. [Another staff] is great.”

Staff told us following a resident’s meeting they had arranged to have fish on Fridays as some people were catholic. Staff confirmed they did not have people from other faiths. A relative told us staff had offered to support people with attending church, but they didn’t want to. They told us, “They express no desire to go or have visits by either volunteers or the clergy.”

People were not supported with activities to support their wellbeing. At our last inspection we found a lack of activities available for people. This remained an issue at this inspection; at our visit there were no activities planned, and people were sitting in front of the TV with no stimulation. People’s relatives confirmed this was usually the case. A relative said, “They do nothing all day.” The manager told us staff had received training in activities and some events had been held to mark occasions such as VE Day and Easter. Relatives we spoke with confirmed this.

Staff we spoke with found it challenging to identify activities people would enjoy. As the number of people in the home reduced (due to not taking on new admissions) it appeared to have affected the atmosphere. A member of staff said, “We lost some residents who were big characters.”

An activities coordinator had been recruited and started after our visit. The initial activities planner sent to us after our visit was quite generic so did not reflect individual interests but there were options for people on a daily basis which there had not been previously.

People’s care records included guidance for staff to promote independence. For example, in a record we reviewed it stated the person was able to wash their upper half themselves and staff were to encourage this. It included guidance for how to support them to make choices such as what to wear.

Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. A person told us they had a call bell but rarely needed to use it as staff tended to check on them. They told us, “I’m happy with the care I am given. I don’t feel neglected at all.”

At our last visit we found staff interactions with people were task-focused and some were poor including a lack of support with meals, drinks and appropriate communication. This had improved although remained mainly task focused. However, we also observed staff supporting people to choose meals from the menu; they showed patience as the people struggled to understand and took a long time to choose. Another staff member gave a partially sighted person a drink and told them what side of the table it was on. We reviewed a person’s care record which stated photos had been used to support the person to advise which activities they would enjoy.

We observed a member of staff check on a person in their room. They were very attentive to their needs and checked with the person before they did anything. For example, they noticed a yoghurt uneaten so offered to open it.

The provider promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff received supervision where they had an opportunity to discuss working relationships among the team, training and updates on residents. Some staff had ‘champion’ roles. We saw 1 of the senior care staff was the medicines champion and there were plans for another staff member to be the dementia champion. This meant staff were supported to develop in areas of particular interest to them.