Charnwood Oaks 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 our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to ensuring people were treated with dignity and respect at all times.

This service scored 35 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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

We identified multiple examples where people were distressed or calling for help and staff did not respond, which did not demonstrate kindness and compassion. Examples included, a person sitting in the lounge diner - shouting for a help – we observed a staff member sitting at the dining table with their head in their hands who did not respond the person, another person was sitting in an armchair asking for help, a staff member walked past them, the staff member did not acknowledge or respond to the person.

We observed people in undignified positions, including instances where an incontinence pad was on show for a person, and another person was positioned in a way which exposed their bare legs and their incontinence pad had been torn up. We also observed poor privacy practice, including a staff member calling out across a lounge stating a specific person needed to use the toilet.

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.

Many relatives told us staff knew people’s likes and dislikes and treated them as individuals, particularly during the day. One relative told us, “They know everything about [family member]. I have made sure they know about [family member]. I made sure they know what they like to eat.” There were also positive examples of personalised goals being supported, such as arranging for ponies to visit for a person who wanted to see a horse and supporting another person to grow vegetables and tomatoes. However, experiences were inconsistent. Relatives raised concerns about lack of stimulation, and some people’s religious needs were not well supported after moving into the home. These concerns showed the service was not consistently meeting individual needs in a personalised way.

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.

The home supported some people to make choices and achieve personal goals, which promoted independence and wellbeing. However, staffing pressures reduced people’s opportunities to do what mattered to them. Staff explained one-to-one time which should be used to support meaningful activities such as walks in the garden had reduced when staffing was short, because staff had to remain in communal areas to oversee multiple people. This meant people’s choice and independence were not always promoted.

We also observed instances where people were not supported to maintain their autonomy. For example, 1 person was observed to have a table over their lap, their feet in between frame underneath, and their walking frame out of reach meaning they could not easily mobilise if they wished. Another person was observed to be calling for help and trying to get up from their armchair to mobilise. However, their walking frame had been removed and placed back into their bedroom, meaning they did not have access to mobilise at times of their choice – they were instead reliant on staff to be available to fetch their walking frame for them.

A relative explained, “[Family member] had to fit in with [provider’s] schedules; they don’t have time for [family member] otherwise.”

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People’s immediate needs were not always met in a timely way. We observed people calling out in distress without staff responding. For example, when a person who was laying in their bed was screaming for help – a staff member walked down the corridor in the direction on their room and went into the neighbouring room – then walked off down the corridor leaving the person still distressed in bed with no assistance. In another example, a person asked inspectors for help and assistance because they were thirsty and could not reach their water jug on the opposite side of their bedroom. The person advised inspectors they had pressed their call bell and had waited a long time and no staff had come.

Staff described examples where they could hear people calling out but could not attend because of being assigned to one-to-one supervision. Relatives also described delayed call bell responses, sometimes reported as very prolonged. These delays increased the risk of distress, discomfort, continence needs not being met, and reduced dignity.

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.

There were positive aspects of staff support, such as access to wellbeing resources, including support for employees through initiatives like the Hub of Hope (a support service for staff to access advice and information). Staff described teamwork on day shifts and nurses being supportive and hands-on. However, staff did not always feel listened to or supported by leadership. Staff described limited ways to feedback concerns, including there being no suggestion box, and described poor communication from the registered manager and limited responsiveness when concerns were raised. Staffing levels also affected morale. One staff member said, “When we have a full allocation of staff then the workload feels ok, but we always have short staffing level. We have a lot of residents who shout out often through the day which is mentally draining all day for staff who are stretched.”

These issues affected morale and reduced confidence that staff were supported to deliver consistent caring practice.