Archived: Shore Lodge - Care Home Learning Disabilities

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 of this key question we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remainedrequires 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 treating people with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. We observed people were not always treated with respect and kindness. We observed times when 1 person was very upset about their housemates upcoming funeral and was told several times to stop crying by staff. Comments made included, “Why are you crying, people don’t cry, so stop crying. What are you crying for? Do you want me to cry? I don’t like people crying.” This showed a lack of empathy and compassion. However, we did see positive interaction as well. Staff were visible and accessible throughout our visit and spent time engaging with people. Staff interaction with people was friendly and personalised. Staff generally anticipated people’s needs such as support with eating and drinking and support with their continence. Staff spoke with people at eye level and used respectful language, giving people time to respond to them. For example, asking what activity they wanted to do or where they wanted to sit. Staff encouraged people to engage and participate in activities, such as, art, playing games, or discussing what was on the TV. Some staff were observed sharing affectionate gestures with people, for example, putting their arms around a person or holding their hand, especially when giving emotional care and reassurance. We observed doors to people’s rooms were closed when people were being supported with their personal care needs.

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 were not always treated as individuals and not always encouraged to do things for themselves. We observed 1 person being frequently called by their full first name rather than their preferred name. Another person was referred to as a different name throughout the assessment, this was not their choice and was not their preferred name. Some people’s beliefs and religion were recorded in their care plans, however they were not supported by the service to explore their religious needs. For example, a person only went to church when supported by their relatives. There was nothing recorded in their care plan to show that they were offered support to attend church services when they were not with their family. Another person’s care file showed they were catholic. Again, there was nothing to show that the service had explored options to support this person to visit church or for visiting church services to take place. A staff member said, “No one goes to church.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People’s independence was encouraged with the use of aids such as adapted cutlery which enabled the person to eat their meal independently. Staff told us they encouraged people to be involved in their care by offering people choices and communicating with people by giving them time to answer short questions, pointing to objects and by giving people time to do what they can for themselves. We observed a staff member supporting 1 person with their meal, they were encouraging the person to eat independently and saying, “well done”. Some of the support was hand over hand at times and at other times the person was able to take their adapted spoon to their mouth and feed themselves. People’s care plans included information about what the person could do for themselves or how they were involved in certain tasks. Relatives told us they could visit and call when they wanted to. There were no restrictions on visiting times and people were able to see who they wanted and when.

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. Staff recognised when people were becoming anxious or upset, however people’s emotional support plans were not always followed to assist people when they were anxious and distressed. A person was anxious and distressed for the whole day on day 1 of our assessment and for most of day 2. Their emotional support plan stated when distressed go to an area where they could see the garden and feel the fresh air on their face and stated to go out for a walk in the community. The triggers for upset included, being uncomfortable, isolated and not involved, personal care, boredom, pain, constipation, transitioning from being out of the service. It stated staff should have plans in place for something the person liked to do immediately on return home. We observed staff not doing this. The person’s agitation and volume affected other people living at the service and they became withdrawn and showed their concern through their body language. Staff told us that this sometimes happens at day and night. Another person did not get their immediate needs met, they did not have activities to meet their sensory needs. The person was not able to see, their care plan showed they liked a quiet environment. We observed they spent their time in the lounge area, often with loud music playing, or the TV on and with people showing signs of anxiety. They repeatedly requested to go to bed but were not supported to change their environment and have access to activities to meet their needs.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. Some of the staff had worked at the service for a quite a long time. Staff told us they were happier working at Shore Lodge and felt improvements were being made. They felt supported by the new manager and senior management team. Staff felt they were given training and support to enable them to provide appropriate care for people and meet their needs. A staff member said, “We are getting supervision. I have had 4 managers in the time I have been there, every manager comes with their own ideas of how they want things to be done. Everything is done in the best interests of the residents. Communication is good we have flash meetings, training and meetings. Since I have been at the service there has been lots of improvements.” Staff had no concerns and felt they could discuss any worries with the manager or deputy should they need to.