Amber Court Residential 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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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 1 person needed supported with personal care, after they had become incontinent. The person requested support from staff; however, staff did not promptly respond to this. We intervened and asked staff to act.

Other people felt staff were kind and caring and their dignity was considered. One person said, “They are all kind”. Another person said, “My dignity and privacy are respected, they always knock on the door and wait for me to tell them come in”. We observed other positive interactions between staff and people. For example, we saw a member of staff kneeling down in front of a person and listening to them. The staff member was compassionate and listened for as long as the person talked, offering them reassurance.

Staff were aware of how to treat people with kindness and compassion and gave examples how they could support people to maintain their dignity.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives around if they were treated individually. One person told us, “I think some of the staff are always listening to your private conversations when family visits. Some don’t treat you with respect. They just say ‘What do you want?’ They don’t use your name. It’s not nice. It’s how they speak that is the problem”. Another person told us, “It’s almost silent all the time when they hoist me, except when they speak to each other in Punjabi. I only understand a little, but they speak very fast so I can’t understand. They don’t speak to me.” Another person told us, “I can make my own decisions about what I do”. The person also told us these decisions were respected. During our inspection we observed people were treated individually.

The provider told us there were systems in place to ensure people’s care was assessed and plans in place based on their individual needs, however we could not be assured these systems were followed as information about people was not always, recorded or available for us to review. Staff we spoke with were able to tell us what people’s individual preferences were.

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.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives around independence, choice and control. One person said, “I make all my own decisions, they don’t decide what I do. They do choose what clothes I put on, I don’t really know why.” Another person said, “The staff are fine, they listen to me. I can get up and go to bed when I want. I chose what to wear.” Some people raised concerns about the lack of stimulation in the home. “I would like more things to do that I like”. Another person said, “It’s quiet and peaceful here, but it would be nice to have more things to do though.”

The provider told us they had recruited a dedicated activity co-ordinator to design and implement a structured varied programme of physical, cognitive and creative activities. During our site visit we saw people watched the television, engaged in a short activity of throwing a ball and participated in hobbies of their choice such as colouring and knitting. This meant this introduction had not been effective in bringing about the changes the provider told us it did.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives on how responsive the service was to their needs. A relative told us, “My relation gets no exercise at all and there’s nothing for them to do.” Other people and relatives raised no concerns.

The manager told us they held regular reviews of people’s care to ensure they had the most up to date information about people. The records we viewed showed us when reviews did take place, they had not always considered incidents that had occurred since the last review, changes to people’s needs and advice from health professionals. There was no evidence to show how people and those important to them were involved with this review. The manager told us they were introducing resident of the day which would ensure people’s needs were regularly reviewed and people were involved with this. As this had not yet commenced, we will review this as part of our next inspection.

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

Staff we spoke with felt supported by the organisation and said it was a good place to work. There were systems in place to consider staff wellbeing and staff felt valued by the support they received.