Somerleigh Court

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

This service scored 75 (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 saw caring and respectful interactions between staff and people and when speaking about people to us, staff were polite. Care plans also used respectful language.

Relatives told us they were happy with how staff treated their family members. Comments included, “Staff are always very courteous, respectful and caring and have a friendly manner, “I have found staff to be compassionate, caring, patient and professional. It has been an immense relief after the horror of the last care home” and “[Person] tells me that the staff chat to them and are always asking for permission to do things for them.”

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.

Care plans were person-centred, were regularly reviewed and took account of peoples protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Relatives told us staff knew their family members well.

Throughout the feedback calls there was a theme that since the change in provider, things had been less person centred and like a home and more businesslike.

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

People were encouraged to make day-to-day choices and whenever possible enabled to be more independent. We saw people chose to remain in their rooms rather than have meals in the dining area and heard staff asking people for consent before providing support.

Individual activities took place when staffing allowed, for example, the manager had taken a person to the shops as they asked to go.

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.

We did not hear call bells ringing for long periods and at lunchtime people were supported by a suitable number of staff.
At weekends and during the evening, relatives described being unable to access the premises to visit their family members. This was due to the reception not being manned at those times. Following feedback from relatives, a weekend receptionist position was introduced, and relatives were given an access code for the front door.

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

Staf were supported through 1-to-1 meetings with a line manager during which they could raise any concerns or discuss problems as well as receive information and feedback. The manager told us they wanted to listen to staff when the little things bothered them as if not addressed, these may increase in seriousness and cause more concerns. During a period of time when staff had approached external agencies with concerns, as staff felt unable to speak to the previous management team, HR sessions were arranged so staff could speak with someone outside of the service.
The provider also had an open-door policy which was upheld by the manager. They wanted staff to feel they could approach them, and we saw this was the case.

In addition to day-to-day support, the provider had an employee of the month award and gave vouchers to staff who had gone ‘over and above’ of what was required. The manager was keen to develop team cohesion and was arranging a social event where staff and their families could gather for a beach day or a sports event. Ten staff members had signed up which was an improvement on previous events.

Feedback from staff was not always positive however, staff who had met and worked with the new manager gave positive feedback about them and how they were treated by them.