St Bridget's - Care Home 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 – 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 assessment the rating remains good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect, and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity.

People told us staff were kind. One person said, “It’s a special place here, [managers] go above and beyond, they have respect from the staff.” Feedback received was positive, with a relative stating, “We look upon the home as an extended family and treat staff as such.” People were able to meet their relatives and friends in private or to sit and relax in communal areas. A staff member said, “These guys deserve the absolute best and I try very hard to achieve it.” We observed staff were kind and caring with people and treated them with dignity and respect.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care and support met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Some people had lived at the home for many years and staff knew them well. People’s diverse and cultural needs were catered for, and these were reflected in their care plans. One person told us, “I do like it here and I choose what I want to do.” This person told us of a relationship that had been developed with a person from another home of the provider, and how they were supported to meet up. Another person showed us, with assistive technology, how they controlled their smart speaker in their bedroom to play music they liked to listen to. A relative told us, “[Family member] gets out a lot here. They celebrate festivals and he can go to church if he wants.”

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

A range of activities was organised for people, such as ten pin bowling, arts and crafts, and coffee mornings. These were planned for people rather than with them. Two people who lived in the bungalows spent much of the day driving around the corridors in their wheelchairs, with no meaningful activity. One of them said they would like to do some cooking, but this had not been organised for them, even though there was a ‘training kitchen’. We asked a staff member if people used this and they said, “Not really.” People who lived in the bungalows had facilities to promote their independence, but none were used in this way. Another person told us they were quite happy to stay in their bedroom and watch television.

People did enjoy using the computer room which was equipped with laptops, screens and technology that was suited to people’s physical needs, but this was only open 3 mornings a week. The staff member in charge of the computer room assisted people to make their rooms more accessible. For example, some people used smart technology to draw their curtains or switch on a cooling fan.

The provider did not always listen to and understood 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 the day call bells were responded to promptly, but due to staffing levels at night, some people had to wait. Some people were reliant on a ‘buddy button’ at night which hung over their bed rails so they could summon staff easily. Where people were unable to use a call bell, night staff undertook monitoring checks at timed intervals. A staff member said, “Some nights it’s not been the greatest shift, and there can be a knock-on effect. If a resident requires a female member of staff, then they might have to wait.”

One person requested to speak with us about some concerns. They said, “I want to choose meals later in the day not first thing in the morning.” We fed this back to staff so they could arrange this.

Care plans included information for staff about people’s preferred communication methods. The Disability Distress Assessment Tool (DisDAT) was also used. This is a resource designed to help identify distress cues in people with severely limited communication abilities.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff told us they felt listened to. One said, “The management is good. One of them is very good at listening, will give you helplines, wellbeing texts and check-ins. They are both very supportive. When things were stressful at work and home, they supported me.”

Staff could have time off to attend religious and cultural festivals, and flexible working patterns to accommodate this.