694 Pinner Road

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 service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question was unrated. At this assessment the rating is requires improvement. This meant the service did not always treat people 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.

Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Feedback from relatives we spoke with told us staff were generally “lovely” and “caring.”

The service did not always make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. Care records we reviewed contained information about people’s strengths, abilities, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. The service catered to people’s religious dietary requirements, however, a relative told us individual preferences and choices were not always followed: “No one encourages [person] to make choices, just given for ease and convenience of home” and that “they gave [person] cereal [person] has never eaten that, due to [person] learning disability and “if they read the pen portrait they would’ve known.” On the day of site visit, we observed positive interactions between staff and people, however we observed an interaction that was not person-centred and did not align with the person’s care plan. For example, during our observation, a staff member providing one to one support was seen grabbing a person’s left arm and right shoulder. There was no verbal interaction attempted to deescalate the situation, and the member of staff did not manage the situation in accordance with the person’s care plan and individual preferences. The care plan indicated the person “responds well to a calm approach” and positive risk taking. Grabbing someone’s shoulder would not be considered a calm approach as it could be perceived as physically intrusive, which could cause further anxiety to the person who was already distressed. This impacting on a person’s sense of safety and independence.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence. People were supported to make choices. For example, their bedrooms were personalised to reflect their individual preferences and choices.

The service manager told us the weekly meal menu was completed with people using the service. The menu board in the dining room reflected both written and pictorial signage of meals. Although this was displayed in the main dining room for people to see, not all people were able to understand it. Some relatives we spoke with told us people were not given choices in terms of meals and raised concerns about the quality of food being served. We raised with senior management who told us they were working on improving and implementing a seasonal menu.

Some relatives told us the service supported people to access the community and day centres, however some relatives we spoke with said there was a limited range of person-centred activities available at the care home. During our site visit, we observed people being taken out for walks, but did not observe any organised activities taking place within the care home.

The service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Some relatives we spoke with told us the service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. However, some relatives told us that the service was not always transparent, communication was poor, and they were not always informed of changes in people’s care and support needs. Some relatives reported delays in medical attention being sought when health needs arose.

The service did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. 66.67% of staff who worked at the service participated in the annual staff survey. Most of the feedback from staff was positive. Staff felt supported to carry out their duties and were supported with professional development. However, some staff indicated they felt unsupported by senior leadership, and concerns were raised about closed cultures. We also received feedback of a similar nature from staff during our assessment: some staff did not always feel listened to and supported by senior leadership, which had contributed towards staff burnout. We raised this with senior leadership who plan to introduce group and 1-1 debrief sessions with staff following accidents and incidents and implement individualised supervision specific to staffing needs.

Some relatives informed us the service had a high turnover rate of staff which impacted the service’s ability to deliver person-centred care and people’s ability to develop meaningful relationships with staff that they were familiar with.