Sebright House Care 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to 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 have a consistent approach to treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respecting their privacy and dignity.

Staff were seen to be caring with people and to speak to them in a kindly way. This was confirmed by a visiting healthcare professional who told us, “It is my impression that the staff form good relations with the residents and their families.” However, it was clear some staff felt more confident and comfortable to engage proactively with people. For example, a staff member responsible for providing support in 1 of the communal lounges walked around but did not engage with anyone. When a second staff member took over the monitoring of the lounge, the atmosphere lifted. The staff member went to each person, said ‘hello’ and asked how they were. The staff member was heard to say, ”Oh, [Name] I just love your dress. You look beautiful today.” The person took pleasure in the remark and replied, ‘Thank you’.

People felt they were treated with care and consideration. One person said, “I’m happy enough with staff as a whole, they treat me nicely.” Another person told us, “I have never had a bad interaction with staff, I always think of them as kind.” Relatives told us their family members were well cared for with 1 relative commenting, “They take their time with [Name] and talk to her when they can. They don’t seem to rush her.” Another relative told us, “I can only say staff are very kind and caring to him. I can’t fault them.”

Language was sometimes used in the service that was not supportive of people’s dignity. For example, some staff spoke about ‘feeding’ people rather than assisting them to eat and 1 staff member described a person as a ‘walker’. One of the provider’s audits stated people should be ‘managed’ to prevent them disturbing others. Such terminology was not reflective of best practice in dementia care and did not embed a culture of kindness.

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.

Some care plans lacked information to enable staff to get to know people well and engage with them as individuals. For example, 1 person had been living in the home for 8 months but there was no information in their care plan about their life history, past interests, aspirations, values or beliefs.

Eight people had 1 to 1 support from a staff member for a specified number of hours a day. Our observations confirmed 1 to 1 support was used to keep people safe rather than being seen as an opportunity to engage with people as individuals, stimulating them and promoting positive outcomes.

Relatives told us their family members looked well cared for and received personal care that respected their individuality. They gave some positive examples of people being treated as individuals. One relative commented, “[Name] is always clean, nicely dressed and shaven when I come. They use his name and treat him as a person.” Another relative told us, “They treat [Name] as an individual, they are quite calm with him.” A third relative explained how their family member’s religious beliefs were supported through regular church services within the home.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

At the time of our inspection there were limited meaningful activities to reflect people’s individual needs and preferences and promote their emotional and social wellbeing. One member of staff tried to engage people in skittles and karaoke, however there were periods when people appeared disengaged. One person told us, “There are some games and things and singing but they are not for me.” Another person said, “There are some activities. I don’t do them; I prefer not to.” Whilst the provider encouraged staff to engage with people during quieter times of the day, 1 member of staff commented, “It is really difficult to do activities when you are on your own. You need activities for people with dementia, and you need to dedicate your time. That’s not easy when there are other residents who need your help.” The provider recognised this was an area for improvement and had very recently recruited a new member of staff to support activity provision within the home.

People told us they could make their own choices about their day to day lives. One person said, “I am able to get up and go into the lounge if I want, I do prefer to stay in my room usually.” Another person said, “I am able to do what I like within reason. If I want to go to my room, I can.” Staff understood the importance of people maintaining as much independence in their lives as possible. One staff member told us, “All our residents need our support, but they can do things, and we do encourage that where we can. [Name] on some days can eat on their own and on another day needs help. We take it day by day.” However, we observed occasions when choice and control was not promoted. For example, people were not given a choice about whether they wanted to wear a clothes protector during lunch.

Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Throughout the inspection the noise level within the home was very loud. This appeared to cause some people to become anxious and upset. For example, in the main lounge a staff member and 2 people were singing along using a karaoke microphone linked to the television. The music was very loud. One person seated directly underneath the television was shouting out, “Shut up.” Another person in the adjoining lounge was also shouting out about the noise. Staff who were present in these areas did not appear to recognise the distress the noise level was causing for some people.

Overall, people felt staff were available when they needed them. One person told us, “It depends on how much time staff have got. I don’t wait too long when I need them.” A relative confirmed, “Staff are very quick at responding. They hoist [Name] if they need the toilet and there is always 2 of them.”

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff did not receive regular individual supervision meetings to ensure they were providing safe, effective care. This meant staff did not have a formal process to review their workload, monitor and review performance, or identify any learning and development opportunities. One staff member told us, “We have an appraisal once a year. We used to get supervisions, but we haven't had those for a while. That usually comes up in the appraisal once a year." Another staff member said, “I have had supervision, but it was a long time ago. I can’t really remember when.” The area manager confirmed the expectation was that staff had individual supervision meetings every 3 months.

Staff worked in a busy environment supporting people with complex needs. The provider did not have any formal processes to support staff wellbeing such as access or signposting to counselling groups or mental health first aiders. There were however processes to recognise staff practice through employee of the month and ‘let’s share’ meetings when staff were encouraged to meet up and food was provided.