Longmead Court 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 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.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity; however language used in records was not always dignified. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

There was mixed feedback about the engagement levels of some staff, and our observations confirmed that staff interactions were inconsistent. During lunchtime observations, while staff were kind, interactions and care delivery sometimes appeared task orientated rather than person-centred. We observed a staff member showing real compassion and consideration for a person’s wellbeing and feelings by taking care of their ‘comfort doll’ whilst they ate lunch, however, we observed another staff member supporting a person to eat without any meaningful conversation to improve their dining experience. We also saw a person being supported to eat by a staff member who did not know their name. Despite our observations, feedback was mostly positive in relation to how staff treated people. People felt they or their relatives were treated with kindness and compassion. A relative said, “The carers are lovely, they are very chatty. They know my loved one’s likes and dislikes and how they like to receive their care and support”.

Language in care plans was not always supportive, person centred or respectful. Some stated how to ‘manage’, or ‘address’ behaviours as opposed to supporting the person. People’s dignity and presentation were well maintained. People were observed to be clean, well dressed and appropriately groomed.

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.

Care plans included gender related preferences and cultural considerations, for example where people preferred a specific gender of staff to provide their personal care, this was specified. The home used an electronic care planning system, which included prompts for staff to consider any cultural requirements for example, options to consider whether halal or kosher diets were required. We observed activities taking place, and people were encouraged to engage. Resident meeting minutes showed people were consulted about planned activities. There was a schedule in place for weekly activities and relatives told us people had regular opportunities to go on ‘outings’ outside of the home. One person said, “The activities are very good, I am in bed all the time but the activity lady brings activities to my room and I do them, Last week I made a wind chime”.

People had been supported to celebrate important life events such as wedding anniversaries and to maintain engagement with people and activities that were important to them. A person had recently been supported to reconnect with old friends and to attend a motorcycle event. The home had nicely maintained outdoor spaces, and we were told people were usually free to enjoy these spaces. There was seasonal decoration, for example to celebrate the world cup and photos were displayed to show what people had been involved in, which created a warn and homely environment.

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

Staff demonstrated a good understanding and commitment to encouraging people’s independence, a staff member said, “People can choose their clothes, timing for their wash and mouth care. If someone doesn’t want to clean their teeth, I will show them the toothbrush and paste and then they will do it for themselves.” Another said, “We make every effort to give residents the time they need to maintain their independence”. However, other staff members told us this was not always possible, in practice. We observed people doing as much as they could for themselves, for example when one person had stopped eating their meal, a staff member recognised this and provided a gentle prompt to encourage them to continue feeding themselves. Relative feedback was mixed. Some told us they felt their loved ones were supported to retain their independence, with one saying, “They encourage my loved one to do as much for themselves as they can”, however, others felt more could be done to support people’s independence, with one person saying they were, “Not sure if they encourage [Person] to do things for themselves”. Care plans included guidance which outlined the level of support people required when completing specific tasks and included options which described what people were able to do for themselves.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We saw that call bells, which were used by people to request help and support, were frequently used, and were answered promptly by staff. Leaders told us there was no regular audit completed to oversee staff response times to ensure people were supported in a timely manner when they needed care or support. Following our discussion, this was implemented to improve management oversight. People’s ability to request urgent help had been assessed, for example by using call bells, and where this had been assessed as not appropriate to be used, alternative methods had been implemented. Care plans contained guidance for staff to understand and recognise signs of pain or distress, including non-verbal cues, to help staff to anticipate people’s needs to try and prevent discomfort, concern or distress. Feedback was mostly positive in relation to staff response to people’s immediate needs, with a relative telling us, “The other day [Person] had a rash. Straight away, the doctor was there. They gave [person] some ointment. Doctor is there quickly. It’s instant”. However, records needed to be strengthened when responding to people who were distressed to ensure that the effectiveness of interventions could be better understood and analysed to improve future outcomes. Although emotional support charts were completed to evidence when staff had responded to someone in distress, they were not always completed in full to evidence what had and hadn’t worked when responding.

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

The provider promoted workforce wellbeing through recognition and support. An employee of the month scheme celebrated staff achievements, and rotas provided appropriate rest periods between shifts. Relatives told us that staff delivering one-to-one support rotated regularly, which helped reduce the risk of burnout. Supervision records showed staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals, and meeting minutes demonstrated that leaders routinely recognised and thanked staff for their contributions. Staff feedback on wellbeing and morale was mixed. While one staff member described a high workload and pressure, another reported receiving regular supervision, training updates, annual appraisals, and access to support and advice from senior staff when needed.