St Margarets 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 remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff were kind and varied how they shared information to aid people’s understanding. People were able to make unwise decisions and staff encouraged independence.

Adapted cutlery and aids were provided for a small number of people to help the person eat independently. However, lidded beakers were provided to numerous people without assessments having been completed detailing why this was necessary.

Some people experienced delays when requesting support and staff recognised this did occur.

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.

People were complimentary of the staff team and the care they provided. They told us, “The staff are lovely, I am not just saying that they are lovely and really take care of you”, “They are so very thoughtful” and “They treat me well here”. Relatives also spoke positively of the staff and the care they provided. They said, “The carers are very good” and “Care is good, food is good, room is good”. Another relative described how the staff team were making arrangements to support their relative to attend an important family celebration.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were able to make decisions about when to get up and when to go to bed. Staff told us, “People get up when they want to” and we found only one person was up when we arrived for the first day of the inspection before 7am.

Staff varied their communication styles and approaches in response to people’s needs and preferences. People and staff were comfortable together and were observed making jokes. People’s comments included, “It is a good place and I am happy I am here. They look after me so well” and “This place is flexible, you can ask for anything. The food is good and the carers are all lovely they do whatever you ask”.

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.

Some people had been appropriately provided with adapted cutlery and tableware to help them to eat independently. However, at lunchtimes numerous people were served drinks in lidded beakers, no risk assessment had been completed detailing why people were unable to use open cups or glasses. The overuse of lidded beakers and drink holders can impact on people’s independence.

Records showed people assessed as having capacity to do so were able to make unwise choices. Staff had offered support and encouraged less risky behaviours but had respected people’s choices.

People and relatives told us staff supported people to move as independently as possible. One relative said, “The home has been lovely with [my relative] and they have been proactive in [their] care, fixing the wheelchair and enabling [my relative’s] independence”.

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.

People reported staff did not always respond quickly to their requests for support and described numerous occasions when staff responses had been delayed. People’s comments included, "I have been in tears waiting to be assisted to the toilet” and “It takes time for staff to come, I’m waiting now”. One person reported that call bells ringing often caused them disturbance and commented “Residents are always shouting for staff to attend them…it gets me down quite a bit”.

Staff told us they endeavoured to respond to call bells as quickly as possible but accepted there had been occasions where they had not responded immediately. Staff acknowledged that sometimes they would respond to a call bell, assess the extent of the support required, explain that they were currently busy and advise people they would return shortly to help.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they were well supported by management who looked favourably on requests for flexible working patterns. Staff comments included, “I am single [parent] and they are really, really helpful” and “They are very helpful, anything I need they always try to help”.