St George's Nursing 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 the last inspection, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this inspection this key question has remained 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 did not always have systems in place to ensure that people were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

People were able to share their views, and their relatives, told us staff were kind and caring. A person said, “The staff are all nice.” We observed the activities organiser go into a person’s room, offered hot chocolate, and a movie or music. They also adjusted the person’s pillow. A relative said, “They have looked after my [person] which has given me peace of mind.”

In most instances we observed staff to be attentive, and they had good relationships with people. However, we observed a situation were a person was upset and we needed to intervene to get them support.

Staff were respectful when assisting people and spoke discreetly. Staff were able to tell us how they would promote a person’s dignity and privacy. However, we also noted for those in shared rooms, while curtains were pulled round during personal care, visitors of the other person continued to stay in the room which did not fully promote people’s dignity.

Following our feedback the manager and newly appointed clinical lead were carrying out walk rounds and checks in place to help monitor people were supported with dignity and kindness.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure where possible people’s care, support and treatment met people’s preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People could not always be supported by staff of their preferred gender. Staff were seen, and heard, offering support as people needed. Where people had indicated a preferred gender of staff to support them, at times a different gender supported them. A person’s plan said ‘prefers female carers but will accept male carers’. The provider advised people will accept male staff if they know them and are comfortable with them. As this person struggled to express their views ongoing work was needed to ensure staff did not lose sight of the need to offer a preferred gender where possible.

Care plans were varied in the amount of information about people’s needs, preferences and lifestyles. These would benefit from further development to ensure they were including individual information.

People and their relatives told us they felt they were treated as an individual, in a way they liked. A relative said, “They seem to understand [person] well.”

Staff were able to tell us about people’s individual needs and preferences in some instances although not always recorded. A staff member said, “The care provided is mostly person centred.”

The provider did not always demonstrate in records how they promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.Inconsistencies in care planning and assessment needed to be improved.

Most people were unable to express their views. Those able to, and relatives, were positive about how they were supported in relation to their needs. A relative said, “They know my [person] now and seem to work around them.”

Staff felt people were supported to maintain independence choice and control. They also felt there were sufficient opportunities to promote their wellbeing.

We observed people being asked if they were ready for care or support. This was done in a respectful and patient way. People were not all able to tell staff what they wanted due to their complex needs so staff needed to anticipate their support needs.

The provider did not always demonstrate how they actively listen to, take actions 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.

The management team had systems in place to give them oversight of care provided to help ensure each person received the care they needed when they needed it. However, this was not robust as they had not identified shortfalls we had found. For examples, in relation to missed pressure care risks. This was being further developed following our feedback due to us identifying areas that had shortfalls.

People said their needs were met swiftly. A person said, “Surprisingly staff are getting to know me.” Relatives were positive about staff approach and how attentive they were to meet people’s needs. We saw staff responding to requests for support but also had to intervene and seek staff support for a person who was distressed and unable to alert staff.

The provider had not always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff said they felt supported by the management team. A staff member said, “We the staff are treated fairly and equally.”

The manager was working to improve the frequency of staff supervisions, appraisals and training as this had not always been completed.