Falcon House 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 inspection we rated this key question Good. At this inspection 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 provider was in breach of legal regulation as people were not supported in a person-centred way.

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.

The management team did not ensure people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion or respect their privacy and dignity.

People were not always treated with real dignity and respected as an individual with individual preferences and wishes. Where people had not been supported with personal care, this left them with a lack of dignity due to appearing unkempt. We observed interactions where people were asked by staff to move from a chair they had chosen as another person had a preference for this chair. The explanation from the staff member to this person was inappropriate and blamed the person for attempting to sit in another person’s ‘regular’ chair.

We observed staff responding to people in a way that suggested they knew them well. However, the interactions did feel over familiar at times. For example, staff were observed eating their lunch whilst supporting people with their meals at the same time. One relative told us, “My family member is less happy in the home now as they feel the residents have changed. There are more people living here with cognitive impairment, so the home is noisier, and they feel they have no one to chat to.”

Everyone we spoke with told us how kind and caring the staff were. One relative told us, “I occasionally see some incredible acts of kindness. One resident loves jelly babies and one of the carers brings some in and surprises them, with them hidden in napkins. Another staff member will also do a “hug” round for all the residents that like a cuddle.” Another relative told us, “The housekeeping staff know my family member likes black cats, so they bought them a cushion with a black cat on it. That was so kind.”

When people had visitors, they were made welcome by the staff team. People and relatives told us there were no restrictions on visiting.

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 lacked personalised details on people’s goals and aspirations. Staff were frequently finding they were task-oriented, leaving little time for them to personalise care for people. Although the service had easy access to accessible public transport, people were not being regularly supported to engage with their local community.

People were observed waving to local school children when they walked past the main lounge windows. One person we spoke with told us this was, “The best part of their day.” Another person expressed to us how happy it made them, to see the children. We were advised that the service engages with a local school, church and community groups but people and their relatives could not recall these events.

The management team 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.

On our arrival at the service on 11 March, at 7am, inspectors found 16 people to be up and dressed for the day. 8 of these people were wearing clothing covers over their clothes in readiness for breakfast. We discussed this early rising with those people who could speak with us. Some people did explain they awoke early, and this was their preference. However, the night records and sleeping care plans lacked specific details around individual preferences for these people. The explanation given by staff for people being up and dressed and seated was due to, ‘wandering’, indicating this was easier for staff to manage.

All of the people who we spoke with said they choose to go to bed early and tend to get up early around 6am. Though people said it this was their decision, it was unclear if this is actually a choice or a routine they have become used to. One person said, “I go to bed at 6pm and get up when I hear the staff moving around in the morning which is about 6am.”

The care plans and records we reviewed for some of these people did not show any onwards referrals had been made for these people to support better sleep, cognitive support or falls risks. This left people’s personal choices not being fully respected and with a lack of wrap around support in place.

The management team 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.

Referrals were not always being made to external teams to help mitigate risks effectively. For example, people who had experienced falls and injuries had not been referred to professionals for specialist input to help mitigate this risk. Where referrals had been made, these had not always been followed up in a timely manner by the service or updated in people’s care plans. This left people exposed to the risk of not receiving safe and effective support.

Where people could not communicate verbally, we observed interactions between staff and people that demonstrated relationships were caring. However, the poor care planning and risk management in place did not enable staff to anticipate and meet people’s needs quickly to reduce people’s discomfort or distress.

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.

Some staff we spoke with expressed frustration and not feeling empowered. Some staff felt the service had a poor culture, with this being exacerbated by some staff being related to the management team.

Some staff felt they had not been supported to progress or learn new systems, even though they had extensive knowledge and skills which could be utilised.

We saw from staff meeting minutes, these meetings were held infrequently, and some staff we spoke with felt their views had not always been listened to.

Some staff did give positive feedback around the culture and support offered to them by the management team. One staff member said, “I feel we are a good staff team. There could be more of us at times, but I am confident I know and understand people well.”