Calton House Limited

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 requires improvement This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to person-centred care.

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.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

One person had an audio monitor in their bedroom. Staff told us this was because they did not always have staff with them, and this enabled them to contact staff at any time if they required assistance and ensure their safety at all times. The receiver was positioned in an area used by both staff and other people living at the service. The member of staff told us the monitor was always on but would be turned down when the person was in receipt of personal care. This did not ensure the person’s dignity and privacy was always protected.

Some of the language used by staff was not respectful or empowering. One member of staff described a person as ‘awful’. Another told us they would ‘send them to their room’ if a certain individual was agitated. Daily notes referred to a person as being ‘very good.’

The provider did not treat people as individuals and make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were not encouraged to stretch their own boundaries and break routines and habits. One person told us they had a routine which they tended to keep to but then added they were not sure why. They told us; “What we don't do so much anymore is go out. Some staff will take me, [Staff Name] did recently. Sometimes I haven't got a great idea of what I'm doing, it goes a bit empty.”

We asked one member of staff why a particular individual did not go out in the evenings. They responded, “They did say one Sunday they wanted to go to the pub and play pool, but I said it will be busy and you won't like it and will have to come home.”

However, care plans contained background information about people to help staff gain an understanding of their needs. Staff were able to talk about people confidentially.

Relatives told us staff knew their family members well. One told us their family member was supported to enjoy their hobbies and another said, “[Pronoun] goes to work every day at a nursery, digging and planting potatoes and beans.”

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.

Aspects of the supported living settings were more akin to the ethos of a care home. Staff did not knock on front doors before entering people’s homes. We observed a member of staff go into one person’s personal accommodation to attend to laundry. They did not inform the person, who was sitting nearby, that they were going to do this or ask their permission. These practices did not support people to develop a sense of ownership for their homes; did not reflect they had the same control over their home as any other citizen and was not in line with guidance laid out in the Reach Standards and The Real Tenancy Test. The Reach Standards are a best practice framework for supported living services.The Real Tenancy Test is a tool designed to assess whether individuals in supported living arrangements have genuine tenancy rights.

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.

Staff were aware of, and mindful to, any sensory or processing difficulties people had. For example, one member of staff described how one person preferred to be given information over the telephone. They made sure they used short sentences and checked their own instinct to avoid long pauses to make sure they gave the person time to process information.

One person told us they got up earlier than their housemates and valued the one-to-one time this gave them to have breakfast with staff. They told us, “I’m often first up but sleep in staff come down quickly. Help me with breakfast, it's a shared thing, like a workplace.”

We observed positive interactions between people and staff. Staff took time to listen to people and ensure they understood what they were communicating. When one person became distressed a member of staff held their hand and comforted them before guiding the conversation to another subject.

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.

Feedback from staff relating to this area was mixed. Not all staff felt they had always been treated fairly or listened to by senior managers or the provider. Comments included, “I wouldn’t go to [Provider] with problems. Probably because [Provider] doesn't understand”, “Staff are very reluctant to complain” and “Housing gets involved in care. If you want to report anything it's not easy.”

Care staff were positive about support from care managers. Comments included, “Every problem, [Care Manager] is spot on, gets back to me. No trouble”, “I am happy with the support I get. At first, I struggled with organisational skills, [Care Manager] helped massively” and “[Care Manager] has been brilliant.”