Fryers House - Care Home with Nursing Physical 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

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.

This service scored 55 (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 consistently ensure that people were supported and treated with kindness, empathy, and compassion, or that their privacy and dignity were always respected.

We observed mixed interactions between staff and people using the service. In several instances, staff demonstrated respectful and person-centred care, knocking on doors before entering, offering drink choices, and using clear, supportive communication when assisting people with mobility. These practices promoted dignity, autonomy, and a sense of involvement in their care.

However, we also noted occasions where communication was limited or absent. For example, some staff supported people with drinks or meals without engaging or informing them beforehand. In communal areas, we observed missed opportunities for meaningful interaction, with staff present but not actively engaging with people.

Feedback from people and relatives aligned with our observations. While many shared positive experiences and felt staff knew people well, they also noted differences when supported by staff who were less familiar to them. One relative told us, “No one is attending to her or interacting with her.” Another relative told us, “I have explained to them at mealtimes, it is good for her to distinguish what food she is eating, but often I have arrived, and it has all been mixed together.”

Positive comments included, “The staff are friendly … there is interaction going on”, and “The staff are always chatting, smiling and trying to communicate or make some conversation.”

The provider was transparent about the staffing challenges the service had faced and demonstrated a proactive approach to addressing them. They were actively recruiting to build a more stable and consistent team. The manager told us that staffing levels had been increased, and they demonstrated a commitment to supporting new staff, including agency workers, to get to know people well and build trusting relationships. Where agency staff were used, the service aimed to use the same agency staff consistently to promote continuity of care. These measures were intended to improve the overall consistency of support and reinforce a culture of kindness, compassion, and person-centred care throughout the service.

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 records lacked personalised, person-centred information to guide staff in delivering truly individualised care. For example, one person’s spiritual beliefs were noted in their care plan, but there was no guidance on how they wished to be supported in relation to those beliefs. This included missing information about how they might be helped to recognise and celebrate important religious events or access a preferred place of worship. This was also reflected in feedback from relatives, who noted people’s cultural and spiritual needs were not always adequately supported.

This lack of detail limited staff’s ability to provide care that was fully responsive to the person’s identity and preferences. It also highlighted missed opportunities to meet cultural and spiritual needs in a meaningful way.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence and ensure people were fully aware of their rights and had meaningful choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing.

Feedback from people and relatives was mixed. Some people described positive support from staff and shared examples of how their independence was encouraged and supported, such as during personal care, making everyday choices and having access to equipment that enabled independency. For example, ensuring electric wheelchairs were charged and ready for use, enabling people to move independently. However, some people noted this support was not always consistent, particularly when support was provided by staff who were less familiar with their needs or routines.

Relatives highlighted examples where people’s independence had not always been fully supported. Comments included, “We spoke about getting (person’s name) home … but that was talks and no action”, “We were promised more exercise … but instead he has more TV and less exercise which is impacting his mental health and his ability to maintain any skills that he once had” and “The skills she once had are now lost.”

Feedback from people and relatives, as well as records, also highlighted inconsistencies in how people’s personal goals, especially those aimed at promoting independence, were supported. While goals had been identified, they had not been effectively implemented. There was no effective system in place to monitor, review, or track progress, resulting in outcomes that were not consistently achieved or evidenced. This meant that while people’s aspirations were acknowledged, the service lacked the structure and oversight needed to ensure they were acted upon in a way that maximised independence and wellbeing.

People confirmed they were able to receive visitors at times of their choosing, and relatives told us there were no restrictions on visiting. This demonstrated the service respected people’s rights to maintain social connections and recognised the importance of family and community involvement in people’s lives.

Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We found staff were generally responsive to people’s immediate needs. We observed requests for support were usually acknowledged and acted upon in a timely manner. The provider had systems in place to help people communicate their needs, including access to call bells.

Feedback from people confirmed that they felt able to request help and were supported to access medical care when required. Where people were unwell or required additional support, the manager deployed staff effectively to ensure appropriate care was delivered. We saw evidence of staff escalating concerns to external services, including in response to seizures. People were supported to access healthcare professionals such as GPs and hospital services when needed. This reflected a responsive approach to meeting people’s immediate needs and demonstrated a commitment to minimising discomfort, concern, or distress.

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

Feedback from staff was mixed. Some staff told us, and records confirmed, that they had not been supported with regular supervisions and team meetings. One staff member told us, “Last time I had it (supervision) was over a year ago.” Staff also told us that communication from senior leaders about the service could be improved. Staff indicated they felt unsupported by senior leadership. While they were aware that the provider was making efforts to improve the service, including offering support from senior leaders, they felt they were not consistently kept informed or updated about these changes.

Frequent changes in management had contributed to uncertainty and disrupted continuity of care. Staff turnover was noted in feedback from relatives, who felt it impacted people’s ability to build meaningful relationships with familiar staff and affected the delivery of person-centred care.

Despite these challenges, staff spoke positively about the new manager, describing them as approachable and accessible. One staff member told us, “Anything that happens we can email her.” Staff felt able to raise concerns and make suggestions and believed the manager was working to improve the service. For example, although team meetings hadn’t been consistent, they had resumed with the new manager. There was a shared sense of wanting to move forward positively and support these improvements.

Leaders acknowledged the impact on staff wellbeing and the challenges of embedding cultural change. They shared plans to support, develop, and empower staff, including actions already implemented such as more regular supervisions, team meetings, and an ‘open door’ policy to promote open communication and leadership accessibility.

While these actions reflect a commitment to improving staff experience, accountability, and engagement, they have not yet been consistently embedded across the staff team. This had a direct impact on staff morale and the delivery of person-centred care.