St Anselm's Nursing 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect and person-centred care.

This service scored 45 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Some staff did display a lack of patience with some people. For example, we observed some staff sighing loudly after assisting someone on more than one occasion, as if frustrated. This was in front of the person and other people and was not respectful to people.

Some staff also told us they were aware a small number of staff needed to be more patient. One member of staff was also supporting someone to eat, and we observed they were not focused on the task. They walked away from the person without speaking to them between mouthfuls and were more engaged with other staff than the person they were supporting. This needed to be improved.

We also identified concerns regarding privacy as people’s records were not always kept secure. For example, we found records were left unattended on a dining table. Following the inspection we also received concerns from one partner about how some staff spoke to people. One partner told us they saw a staff member speak to someone rudely.

However, we also saw staff treat people well with kindness and gentleness. For example, one person reached out to dance with a member of staff and the staff member responded to their request dancing with the person to the music in the lounge. The person was happy with this interaction. One relative said, “[My relative] is very respected, they understand them, [they] never seemed unhappy with their engagement.”

The provider did not always plan care to ensure people were treated 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 in care planning.

There was a lack of information in people’s care plans regarding their preferences and protected characteristics. Most staff did know people well and were providing people with this support. For example, people were supported to access religious support where they wanted to do so. One person needed routine to support their mental health needs and staff were aware of this and provided this support. However, this was not promoted through good care planning which meant there was a risk new or agency staff would not know how to support the person.

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

People’s care plans varied and some people’s care plans needed more information about people and their needs and preferences. For example, one person’s care plan instructed staff to ensure the person was supported to be as independent as possible. However, there was no information in the person’s care plan about what they could do for themselves.

Staff told us they supported people in the best way they were able to. One staff member told us, “We try to get people to do things as much as they can. It all depends on the day.” People had choices over what they ate and wore and where they spent their time. People were supported to go out when they wanted to do so.

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 responded to people’s requests for help and assistance throughout the day. When people were upset staff responded to provide support and reassurance staff provided them with support. However, we also saw times when some staff were not patient with people and told people they needed to wait for support.

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. Although staff were positive about the support they received at the service, the provider had not ensured that staff had the training and skills to deliver person centred care to people. This had a detrimental impact on people’s lives

Although staff told us they were supported with their well-being, the provider and leaders had not recognised that staff needed to be enabled to deliver safe care by having clear guidance and training. Managers told us they had an open-door policy and were always there is staff needed to take a moment away from working on the floor. Staff also had access to structured support if they needed this and the provider knew how to refer staff for this support. Staff had scheduled breaks during their shifts. One staff said, “The employers have a lot of empathy, there are prepared to work around issues, be flexible. There is therapy if staff need it. Staff are always welcome to go and speak to the management.”