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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained as requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The provider remained in breach of legal regulation in relation to how 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 always ensure people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion, or fully respect their privacy and dignity.

People were not always treated with dignity and respected as an individual with individual preferences and wishes. Where people had not been supported regularly with personal care, they described feeling a lack of dignity. People were not always being supported to maintain their personal cleanliness. Daily records for people showed that limited personal care was being provided for people. The bathing and shower chart for the service, lacked flexibility for people’s preferences, and was not being followed by staff. Where people may be resistive to personal care, this was not clearly recorded in their care plans. One person said, “I would prefer a shower in the mornings, but they’ll sometimes ask me at teatime if I’d like to go for a shower, so I have to say no. It feels wrong.” A relative told us, “They try for a shower every week but depending on staff, it can be less frequent.” Another person gave mixed feedback and said, “They never close the lounge curtains, we are on a busy road. But when I’m being helped to bed, the curtains and door are kept shut.”

The corridor windows had no blinds, curtain or voile panel to give any privacy to people or staff using the communal areas, especially as the building was overlooked by accommodation buildings on several sides. People who sat by choice in the ground floor lounge, facing the pavement, busy road and accommodation opposite, told us that the full-length curtains to the large windows were rarely closed. There was little apparent privacy for people or staff in the lounge areas.

We observed staff responding kindly to people in a way that suggested they knew them well. Everyone we spoke with told us how kind and caring the staff were. One person said, “Some are nicer than others but they’re kind enough to me.” A relative told us, “The staff are lovely, and I often see them around, asking if people need help.”

When people had visitors, they were made welcome by the staff team. People and their 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.

Several people told us that they wished they could have more exercise opportunities One person with good mobility just walked the corridors to pass the time and have exercise. Another person expressed a wish to have some physiotherapy to get strength back in their legs so they could walk again. People and their relatives told us there was a lack of tailored activity provision. One person said, “I have osteoarthritis and don’t get enough exercise opportunities, apart from walking along the corridor. I had an appointment at hospital and the carer came on the tram with me and stayed with me and we had some nice chats then.” We observed people in the communal lounge during our visit. There was limited activity provision, with the television screen being used to play music, rather than having any visual display. The same song was repeated 11 times during our visit, as no staff members had identified the playlist was on repeat.

We were advised that the service engaged with a local school, church and community groups, but people and their relatives could not recall these events taking place.

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.

People’s preferences and choices were not being fully respected. On our arrival at the service on 8 July at 6.40am, inspectors found 10 people to be up and dressed for the day. Some of these people were wearing clothing protection covers over their clothes in readiness for breakfast. People we spoke with told us that their bedtimes and waking times were sometimes governed by staff closing a lounge in the evening or being woken by a medicines round. One person said, “We sit together in the lounge and dining room all day. The lounge closes at 9pm downstairs, so we go off to bed. I’ll sit in my room or go to the upstairs lounge with a few friends. I get woken up early for my tablets, so they get me up and I come downstairs and wait for breakfast. I suppose about 7am.” Another person said, “I get woken early to take my medicine, so I get myself up and go and sit in the lounge for ages afterwards.”

We found 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.

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 always been promptly 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.

We reviewed the care plan and risk assessments for a person living with pressure sores on their skin. The information in these records was contradictory and confusing. The details on how this person should be safely moved by staff, and which equipment should be used was unclear throughout the care plans. This left the person exposed to the risk of further harm, from staff not having clear guidance to follow.

We received mixed feedback on the call bell response from staff. Several people were unaware of having a call bell or the location of this within their room. One person told us they had struggled to reach the call bell panel above their head in bed, but a corded bell had recently been supplied. Another person said, “I’ve no idea where mine is as I don’t use it.” and another person expressed concerns around this, saying, “There’s a button by my wall that I press. I don’t wait too long, mostly maybe 10 minutes.” The management oversight of call bell response was included in the service improvement plan as an action.

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

Where people required support for transferring, we saw staff were calm, patient and spoke kindly with people. One person said, “They use the round platform to help me stand to go in my wheelchair.”

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. They supported and enabled staff and involved them in improving the quality of care at the service.

Staff we spoke with told us of the changes within the service and explained they now felt more supported and involved. Addressing the previous poor culture had been a priority for the provider, and the changes made had led to a notable improvement

Staff were now being supported to progress and learn new systems. Where staff had been identified as having knowledge and skills in specific areas, we saw evidence of promotion opportunities within the service. One staff member we spoke with told us, “I was sickened when I read the last report. The previous management were terrible, and there was a real ‘clique’ amongst staff. Since they have gone, it has been difficult, but a million times better.”

We observed a member of the management team thanking staff for their hard work and acknowledging their challenges, during a daily handover meeting. This showed a more involved and positive approach from the management team. We saw from staff meeting minutes, these were now being held frequently. Giving staff the opportunity to share their views and feel listened to.