Radcliffe Manor House

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 inadequate.

This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

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

This service scored 35 (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 always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

We saw positive interactions over lunchtime. For example, a staff member supporting a resident at lunchtime who was struggling to eat.

Staff told us they felt people were supported with kindness and would raise any concerns with the leadership team. However, due to staffing levels, interactions were often rushed and task centred as staff did not have the time to spend with people.

We observed communal areas (such as the lounges) to be without staff. We therefore saw people left without support and unable to summon help if required. One person told us, “We don’t call out as there’s no one to hear us. I keep an eye on everyone and just hope no one falls out their chair as I can’t do anything to help except shout.”

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.

Care plans contained some details of people’s likes, dislikes and preferred daily routines. However, staff were frequently finding they were task-oriented, leaving little time for them to personalise care for people. Staff told us, “We are not able to support people as the want as we have to work at speed for personal care.” and that they are not able to offer person-centred care because “there is not enough staff. Staff are overstretched. Staff also told us they felt there was a lack of training on how best to support people who did not have capacity to make their own choices.

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

People had a choice of meals to choose from and were asked for their preferred option in the morning. Detail of people strengths and preferences were documents in people’s care plans we reviewed. However, people’s choices were affected by staff availability.

People’s care plans contained details of times they liked to go to bed and when they liked to get up. People told us that this was not always followed, and they had to be supported when staff had time. On person told us, “They decide when to put me in bed, it might be 6pm or can be a lot later. I choose my food and that’s about it.”

Care plans stated people’s preferences on bathing and when they would like baths and showers, however this was not followed. People we spoke with told us that access to a regular shower or bath was limited, and in a number of instances, every three weeks was not unusual. Likewise, hair was not regularly washed due to lack of showers and some ladies relied on the hairdresser, and paid, to have their hair washed. One person told us, “I get a shower about once every three weeks but would prefer at least one a week.” Another person told us, “When I first came, I said I’d like a bath best. It doesn’t happen now due to staff... The only time I get my hair washed is at the hairdresser, but I can only afford every fortnight.”

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Throughout the visit to Radcliffe Manor House, we saw people’s immediate needs were not responded to. This was due to the lack of staff available to support people. Staff told us that staffing levels could impact the amount of support they could give to people.

We both observed and were told that people’s needs were not responded to in a timely manner. During the assessment, we observed people pressing call bells for support and having to wait very long periods of time for support, with one person waiting over 40 minutes. One person told us they are left on the toilet and told to use the call buzzer when they need support. They told us they can be waiting on the toilet for over an hour for support.

The provider did not promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff were given opportunities to have supervision. This one-to-one process allows a meeting with the senior staff to discuss their wellbeing. While this was available, staff explained that they did not always feel able to speak to management about their concerns. Staff told us that supervision was not a regular occurrence, not always meaningful and did not look at development for staff who worked at Radcliffe Manor House.

Staff told us that they felt able to speak up if they had any concerns, however they did not find value in doing so. One staff member told us, “They listen to the concerns and tell you what they are going to do but sometimes it doesn’t happen, and you do not get the feedback.”