Silverpoint Court Residential 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed staff supporting people during our onsite inspection. Some interactions appeared more task focused, however staff still responded to people in a kind way. Feedback was mostly positive around staff, one relative told us, “The staff are very good,” and “The staff are wonderful and do a fabulous job, so no complaints.” Some relatives fed back that agency staff did not always appear to know people as well.

We received positive feedback from external health professionals with regards to the staff teams care and support for people at Silverpoint Court. One professional told us, “I find the carers are nice - all staff such as the domestics and they are very welcoming.”

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.

It was not always clear when care plans and risk assessments had been updated, however the provider had been making improvements to this at the time of the inspection. Whilst progress had been made, the provider needed to ensure it was clear when people and, where appropriate, their relatives were consistently involved in the development and review of care plans.

During our onsite inspection, we observed staff supporting people with choices and people’s individual dietary needs were well documented in the kitchen area. Staff we spoke to had a good awareness of people’s individual dietary needs, especially the staff within the kitchen.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff we spoke to understood the importance of promoting people’s independence and spoke positively about the people they supported. One staff member told us, “We are caring and always try to meet resident’s needs.” One relative told us, “They are very good and try and keep [relative] independent, and encourage [relative] to walk with their frame, and then [relative] will join in activities.”

People were able to maintain relationships with relatives and friends, and visitors were welcomed. Relatives confirmed they could visit at any time and there were no restrictions in place.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. During our on-site assessment, we observed staff responded to people’s needs when required. External healthcare professionals told us staff reported health concerns in a timely manner.

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.

Feedback from staff told us they did not always feel supported around wellbeing. Comments included, “Management should put more effort in caring for their staff and wellbeing” and “Being valued would be nice.” However, on the day of our onsite inspection, we did see positive interactions between staff and the wider management team, and some staff did feel they were supported.

Staff received supervisions and appraisals and were encouraged to attend regular team meetings.