St Mark's Care Home Also known as St Mark's

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 outstanding. 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 60 (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 observed that staff spoke kindly to people. People told us they felt they were treated with kindness and compassion. One person said, “They are very good, you never feel embarrassed with them. If they have time, the staff will talk with me.” Relatives also told us, “The key to setting St. Marks apart from any other care home (and we have experienced another) is, without doubt, the staff.
We observed activities provided during our site visit and noted that the staff encouraged people to participate for their social well-being. We observed how staff spoke politely to people during mealtimes and offered support with their meals when needed.
 

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.
One person told us, “They know me as they said, your daughter is coming today because they looked on my chart.” The activities team told us about the range of individual activities implemented to support people. This included one person running a playgroup and another person working as a librarian, as these were both personal interests to people within the service. The activities team also told us about special events held, such as personalised birthday parties to celebrate people. We observed some group and individual activities taking place during our visit. The activities team told us they adjusted some activities according to people’s preferences, such as celebrating events like Halloween.
 

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 told us they did not feel they had a choice regarding the gender preference of staff to support them with personal care. One person told us, “I think personally, I don’t like being sponge washed by women, I should be treated by males. I was never asked.” Another person told us, “There was a young man this morning, he was a bit embarrassed helping me.” We noted that the provider reviewed the gender preferences for some individuals after we discussed this feedback from them. One person also told us, “I can decide when I go to bed but they like me to go to bed before the night shift.” This meant people’s independence, rights and choices were not always supported.
However, the provider also told us how they supported 1 person to access the community and visit a nail salon, and other people were supported to visit the cinema, which was in accordance with people’s individual choices.
 

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.
We received mixed feedback from people and relatives. One relative told us, “Sometimes I think the nursing staff do not always listen to my [family member] when something is wrong and it takes us to tell them before they take that information seriously. They need to listen to [them] more.” This meant that people’s needs and views were not always quickly anticipated by staff, ensuring they did not have to wait for support to avoid any preventable discomfort, concern, or distress.
Staff told us of the impact of staffing levels on responding to people’s needs. One staff told us, “Essentially, we manage people’s needs but some days it is not possible to meet people’s needs in the time the [people] expect us to.” The provider monitored response times to call bells to ensure people were not waiting a long time.
 

The provider promoted staff wellbeing through a number of schemes and training. However, some staff felt their wellbeing was impacted by their workload.
The registered manager informed us that the provider offered various benefits to support staff wellbeing, and there were allocated champions for staff benefits within the service. The provider hosted diversity events for staff to promote inclusion and understanding on this topic. We saw some meeting minutes where this information was relayed to staff.
Some staff told us, “If I felt I wasn’t coping with my role, I would speak with the unit manager or manager.” However, another staff told us, “I feel overwhelmed sometimes; most of the [staff] have mentioned this to the manager, but there is no change.” This did not demonstrate all staff felt supported and empowered by leadership in the service.
One relative told us, “The majority of staff are amazing, and I cannot praise them highly enough for their kindness towards [relative].” However also added, “I just wish [staff] had a little more time to spend talking to their [people] instead of trying to cope with their workload.”