Madelayne Court

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 remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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.

During our onsite inspection, we observed staff treating people with kindness. Some people and their relatives felt that at times, staff did not always have the time to sit with them, or they felt some interactions were more task focused. Our observations on the day reflected this at times and we did feed this back to the provider on the day of our onsite inspection. However, staff were friendly and kind. At 11am every day, the provider had ‘tools down’ where all staff spend time with people at Madelayne Court Care Home, interacting via activities, talking, one to one support and emotional support. People told us they enjoyed this. Comments received from people and their relatives included, “All staff are very friendly which makes the atmosphere much better for all”, and “They [staff] are very kind and caring to me.”

During our visit we observed staff knocking on people’s doors before entering their rooms and maintaining people’s dignity.

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.

Records we reviewed contained information regarding people’s preferences and needs. We did identify some areas where information appeared generic, however, most aspects of people’s records contained good levels of personalised information. The provider was responsive to this feedback and began reviewing care records to ensure these were individualised. We have seen good evidence of progress in this area. Staff we spoke with demonstrated good awareness of people’s needs. One relative told us, “Thestaff are lovely people and care for the residents.”

People’s individual dietary needs and preferences were identified. For example, some people required food that was tailored to specific conditions such as modified diets and records reflected this.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff we spoke to had a good understanding of people’s needs and understood the importance of promoting independence. People told us they were supported by staff to do as much for themselves as they could. One person told us, “I can dress myself, and staff help me to have a wash, and pick my clothes for the day. I do find them very kind to me.”

During our onsite inspection, we observed staff offering choices, for example during lunch, staff used show plates to help people to choose what they wanted to eat. Relatives confirmed there were no restrictions on visiting and the home was welcoming.

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.

Whilst the staff were kind and caring with their interactions with people, it often appeared more task focused when observing care and support for people. We observed at times people were waiting for longer periods of time to receive support. For example, we observed 1 person was left in the lounge for an extended amount of time, and no staff came to check if they were ok or needed anything. During the lunch serving, 1 person had waited for 45 minutes between being supported into the dining room and receiving their lunch.

The provider had audits in place for analysis of the call bell system and feedback we received from people, and their relatives was mixed with regards to if the call bells were answered in a timely manner. One relative told us, “[Relative] does not press the buzzer, but I did once and they were in there so quickly.” One person told us, “I had to press my bell one day and they did answer it quickly.” Other comments included, “I pressed the buzzer accidently and they still did not come for 30 minutes”, and “Yes, sometimes the call bell is answered quickly but other times you have to wait.”

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

We received positive feedback around the support staff received. Staff told us management were supportive and they felt able to raise any issues with them. Comments included, “Yes management are approachable, supportive and willing to listen to any concerns.”

Supervisions were carried out and staff received regular training.