Pendlebury Court 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 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 service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to treating people 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.

People were not consistently treated with kindness, compassion and dignity. Although relatives provided positive feedback about staff and their caring approach, we found this was not always reflected in staff practice. During our inspection we observed missed opportunities for staff to engage meaningfully with people, recognise their wellbeing needs and provide kind, compassionate and dignified support. Staff interactions were at times task-focused and did not always demonstrate consideration for people's comfort, wellbeing or individual circumstances. We observed occasions where staff did not recognise when people were uncomfortable and in need of assistance, staff remained observing people rather than engaging with them or recognising and responding to their needs. This meant people were not always treated in a way that upheld their dignity or promoted their comfort and wellbeing.

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. Records had not always been updated to reflect changes in people's needs. This meant staff did not always have access to current information about how people wished to be supported. During our inspection, we observed staff adopting a task-focused approach and not consistently tailoring their support to people's individual needs. For example, when a person spilt their drink because they had not received the assistance they required, staff removed the drink rather than offering support or exploring ways to help the person maintain their independence. This meant people were not always supported in a way that reflected their preferences, needs and choices.

People's independence, choice and control were not always promoted. People had opportunities to participate in a range of activities and could choose whether to take part, however, we found people's independence, choice and control were not always promoted in day to day interactions with staff. We observed occasions where staff carried out tasks without seeking people's consent or explaining what they intended to do. We also observed occasions where drinks were placed in front of people without staff explaining what had been provided or offering support where this was required. Some people appeared unsure what they needed to do with the drink and staff did not always recognise this or take steps to promote their understanding and involvement. This meant people were not always enabled to make informed choices, understand decisions affecting them, or maintain control over aspects of their daily lives.

Staff did not always recognise and respond to people's immediate needs in a timely way. We observed occasions where people required support, but staff did not always recognise or respond to this promptly. Staff were not consistently attentive to people in communal areas and did not always actively engage with people to identify whether support was required. This meant people's needs were not always recognised and responded to in a timely way, placing them at risk of unmet needs and reduced wellbeing.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Most staff spoke positively about the support they received from the management team. One staff member told us, “I feel able to go to [management team] with anything, I have no issues.” Staff received regular supervision and attended team meetings, where they had opportunities to discuss their roles and raise concerns. While some staff felt issues they had raised in the past had not always been acted upon, overall staff described feeling supported in their roles