Archived: 142 Petts Hill Care 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to how people were not supported in a person-centred way.

This service scored 40 (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 listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We observed a person sitting on the couch in their room which had no cushions and was heavily stained with urine. The provider did not have systems to receive feedback on people’s experience of the service provided to people their next of kin or professionals. This meant that people’s experiences were not actioned to make changes to the service.

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.

A staff member we spoke with did not have the training or induction to understand people’s needs and how best to support people individually. Care records did not always record details of people’s cultural, social and religious needs, or guide staff on how to ensure these were met. People’s communication needs were not always met to enable them to engage in their care, treatment and support to maximise their experience and outcomes. For example, a care plan we looked at had no input from the person supported, no reviews had taken place to ensure the person had been involved in their care planning and goals for the near future. This meant that people were not receiving person centred care.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People’s care plans did not always contain sufficient information to manage people’s health needs. Information contained within people’s care plans was sometimes generic and lacked detail to enable staff to provide consistent good quality care. People were not empowered to have as much control over their lives as possible. People were not involved in decisions about their care and support which meant they were at risk of not receiving care that met their individual needs or risks.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not have the skills knowledge and training or support to respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. The provider did not have robust review processes in place to ensure people’s support needs were met effectively and according to their care plan. This meant that people’s needs were not always supported in a proactive way to support their individual needs.

The provider did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We did not see where staff were supported with person centred training as part of their induction to the service. Staff did not have supervision meetings or team meetings where they could openly discuss their wellbeing and enabled them to carry out their roles effectively. Staff were working long hours and days in a row this did not support the wellbeing of staff and the people living at the service.

The provider had no system in place to receive feedback from staff in relation to their roles and their wellbeing such as staff surveys. This meant that staff did not have the resources and learning to support people effectively according to their needs.