Bearwardcote Hall Residential 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 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 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 treated with kindness and compassion; however, care was not always fully person-centred, and privacy and dignity were not consistently maintained in all situations. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Observations and feedback indicated that staff knew people well and responded promptly to their needs. Staff interactions generally included explaining care tasks and seeking consent where possible. Despite these positive interactions, care plans and care delivery did not always reflect people’s preferences, life histories, or choices. Some communal areas and routines limited privacy or autonomy. For example, one person reported feeling unsafe when another person frequently entered their room, indicating inconsistencies in managing individual’s dignity.

People consistently described staff as “kind and caring” and said they felt listened to. Relatives echoed this, noting that staff were approachable and treated people respectfully. People said, “They look after us very well,” and “Staff are excellent and reliable.” Relatives confirmed that staff were attentive and treated people with respect. Observations supported these accounts but highlighted areas where privacy and dignity were not consistently upheld. For example, when a resident felt unsafe due to another entering their room, or confidential notes about people’s medication were left where others could see them.

Overall, people experienced care from staff who were compassionate and kind, contributing to a positive atmosphere. However, inconsistent attention to privacy, and dignity meant that some people’s emotional wellbeing and sense of safety were not fully supported.

The provider generally treated people as individuals and considered their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture, and unique backgrounds. However, they did not always ensure that people’s care, support, and treatment consistently reflected their current needs, preferences, or health requirements.

People were treated as individuals, and care plans reflected their personal, cultural, social, and religious needs. Staff generally supported people’s preferences and respected their choices. However, health-related care needs were not always up to date, which limited assurance that all aspects of care were consistently individualised.
Care plans included information on people’s dietary preferences, religious practices, and personal routines. Staff supported people so their bedrooms reflected individuality through personal items and photograph, and celebrations such as birthdays. Staff supported people to make choices and respected their preferences where they had capacity. However, for people who lacked capacity, Mental Capacity Assessments and Best Interest decisions were often missing or incomplete, limiting assurance that care reflected their wishes.

Most people and relatives confirmed that staff respected their personal choices and supported individual preferences. Observations supported this, showing staff promoted individuality in daily interactions. However, the lack of timely updates to health information and lack of best interest decisions for people who lacked mental capacity reduced assurance that care plans fully reflected people’s individual needs.

People were not consistently supported to be independent, make choices, or have control over their day-to-day care and activities.
 

People had access to friends, family, the wider community, and visiting arrangements were flexible. Some meaningful activities were provided, such as pony therapy and outings to a pub, and some positive comments about activities were received from residents. However, there was no activity planner available for people to see what was planned, and activities were limited to the four days when the activities staff were on duty. During our two-day site visit, we observed no activities and overall stimulation and engagement were limited.

Adaptive equipment, such as mobility aids, were in place to support people’s independence, and staff supported people to use this equipment safely. Initial assessments reflected people’s choices, day-to-day preferences, hobbies and relationships; however, they were not consistently reviewed, increasing the risk of staff being unaware of people’s current preferences or changing abilities.

Staff did not consistently encourage people to do as much for themselves as they could. For example, many people who could transfer safely with the support of one or two staff were not encouraged or supported to use dining chairs, so they remained in wheelchairs, limiting both their dining experience and opportunities for movement. Staff were unable to clearly explain the reasoning behind this practice and did not recognise the potential benefits of supporting people to transfer, which limited both independence and opportunities for physical activity.

Staff responded to people’s immediate needs, but we could not be assured that support was consistently proactive or guided by clear procedures.

People had access to call bells, and no concerns were raised about response times. Staff consistently understood non-verbal communication, such as gestures and expressions. However, staff did not consistently record observations or anticipate needs, so we could not be assured that people’s requirements were monitored proactively. Care logs showed incidents where people became distressed and attempted to leave the building due to limited capacity or dementia. Staff did not have guidance or training on how to support people during episodes of distress, which compromised people’s safety and wellbeing. People generally reported that staff were kind and responsive when approached, and relatives confirmed that staff listened and acted when asked. Observations supported this, but highlighted inconsistencies in proactive monitoring and structured guidance for managing distress.

The lack of consistent monitoring, guidance, and training meant that people at risk of distress or harm may not always receive timely support to meet their immediate needs safely.

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 wellbeing and enablement were not fully supported by the provider. This means the provider did not always support staff by providing them with the tools, resources, guidance, leadership and working environments they needed to deliver high-quality and person-centred care.

Staff told us that the manager was approachable, open to concerns, and available on-call during weekends. Several staff noted they could speak freely with management. However, concerns raised were not always followed up promptly or consistently, and staff were not always informed of the outcomes of issues they had raised. Staff reported ongoing cultural tensions within the team and noted that some staff felt disengaged, for example some staff described feeling excluded due to their background, and ethnicity, noting that some colleagues were disengaged and management’s response was limited to verbal warnings. Staff also said that people’s care needs had increased, but staffing levels had not been adjusted, which limited their ability to provide meaningful, and effective engagement and support.

Overall, staff described a supportive and approachable manager but felt that limited follow-up on concerns, unresolved team tensions, and increasing workloads without additional staffing impacted morale and their ability to consistently deliver person-centred care.