Tunstall Hall Care Centre

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 were not always well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

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 provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues with kindness and respect.

People were not always referred to in a dignified way in care plans. For example, there were some references to people being rude or sulking. We raised this with the registered manager who immediately reviewed and amended the care plans to use more dignified language.

We observed some undignified practices such as people being referred to by room numbers and not their names. We raised this with the registered manager who told us this may have become habit due to staff trying to preserve confidentiality when discussing sensitive matters. The registered manager addressed this within a team meeting immediately.

Staff told us there had been some isolated instances in which they had observed some colleagues speak to people in an unkind way. Despite these concerns, we observed positive interactions between staff and people where staff spoke to people with kindness and empathy. Relatives also told us staff were kind and compassionate towards people. One relative told us, “The staff are very friendly, they are kind and seem to have a lot more patience than me.” Another relative told us, “It is very dignified, they absolutely care.”

People’s privacy was not always maintained. For example, one of the bathroom windows was clear and overlooked the main driveway. We raised this with the registered manager who ensured this was rectified by the second day of the site visit, along with another window that had been identified by them.

People were supported by staff who knocked their doors prior to entering and ensured doors were closed when supporting them with personal care.

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.

People were not always supported in a person-centred way that met their needs as individuals. Some practices were task-centred and routine and were not centred around the person’s needs and preferences. For example, people were not always able to eat and drink at the times they wanted to.

Despite some processes being task-centred, we observed positive interactions between people and staff and staff showed they knew people well. Relatives told us staff knew people well and understood how to meet their needs.

People were supported to have their religious needs met. For example, religious leaders of people’s preferred denomination visited the home to undertake services with them.

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.

People were not always able to make their own choices. One person told us they could choose most things, but they were not given the choice of where to eat their meals. We observed people being told when they could have a drink rather than at the time they requested it. We spoke with the registered manager about this, who spoke with staff to reiterate meal and drink times should not be so formal.

People were not always given a choice of where to sit during the day which restricted their control. We observed people being taken to the main corridor lounge rather than being asked where they would like to sit.

Relatives told us people were supported to maintain their independence. One relative told us how staff had supported the person with exercises to maintain their standing balance after a reduction in their mobility. Another relative told us, “The staff are trying to get [my relative] to do bits for themselves.”

Staff told us they worked with people to promote their independence where possible and gave examples of where they had improved people’s outcomes by promoting their independence.

People were able to have visitors when they wanted and were encouraged to access the local community and engage in activities. The home was visited by singers and people were supported to leave the home when able to attend community events and go for coffee.

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.

People were not always supported by staff to respond to their needs at the time they required support. We observed staff telling people who requested drinks they would need to wait for the tea trolley to come round rather than provide them with drinks at the time they wanted them.

People’s mealtimes were also very regimented which meant people who had needs related to their nutritional intake did not always eat sufficiently when they had not been hungry or been asleep at the time their meal was provided. Staff did not always provide alternative meal options or support them with eating their breakfast at a time of their choice.

Relatives told us people’s personal care needs were attended to in a timely manner, and they did not have to wait for support. Where people needed support with personal care, we observed staff responded to them quickly and effectively.

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.

The provider did not always enable staff to deliver person-centred care due to some processes in place being task-centred.

Staff told us they did not always feel like their wellbeing was promoted as they felt concerns were not always addressed consistently. Staff told us their morale was low, and their wellbeing was not always equally considered.

Despite this, staff told us where they had concerns outside of work, they felt able to speak to the registered manager and felt well supported by them.