Drumconner Lancing

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 regulation in relation to dignity and respect

This service scored 50 (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. People’s right to privacy was not always well respected. We saw one person had a notice on the outside of their door referring to personal support information. The registered manager told us this was as a reminder to staff which was requested by a relative. The registered manager had failed to consider this information was readily available to visitors and this was not respecting the persons rights to privacy. Following our feedback the registered manager told us this sign would be removed.

We observed staff not always respecting a person’s dignity, a person was seen to be in a state of undress as staff had left their door open. We raised this to the registered manager who told us they had arranged for staff to be reminded of the need to ensure doors are closed during any personal care task.

Staff were observed to be kind in their interactions with people and were discreet and asked people quietly about their personal care needs when in shared areas of the building.

People and their relatives generally spoke highly of staff, people told us, “Most are very gentle but one was a bit rough, fast hurried but they didn't actually hurt me.” And “I like most of them they are nice and treat me well, I don’t like one of them very much, but I think it’s a personality thing you can’t get on with everyone, all of the staff are gentle when they support me.” We observed staff seemed to know people well and people appeared comfortable with them. One relative told us, “They have such patience, it’s nice when staff walk in, [Name of loved one] is happy to see them and they can have a laugh together.”

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.

People’s choices and preferences were not always clearly noted including their food choices, interests or hobbies. One person’s care plan summary page noted they may need support to decide which foods they wanted, however, there was no details within the care plan about their likes and dislikes. Another persons’ care plan identified an interest in transportation but did not identify how they were supported with this interest. This did not support a personalised service.

People’s culture and heritage was respected, where people may require food prepared in line with their beliefs, this was accommodated. Staff told us how they had supported people with specific cultural beliefs and choices. A visiting professional commented on how staff treated people as individuals, “Staff support is shown by the way each person is asked what they would like in every area of their care and emotional needs. They know the people and food is brought for people and even a bigger tv if they want one.”

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. Staff received little guidance on how they could support people to retain their autonomy.

Some people were not in control of their day to day lives, people’s right to decline support was not always respected. One person’s care record referred to removal of their dentures when staff supported them with food to reduce the risk of biting, however, there was no details about how this person was supported to maximise independence and control. Another person told us how staff did not always put their laundry back where the person could reach it. This caused them frustration and meant they were not always able to reach their possessions. They told us, “It would be nice to have half hour a month with staff to help keep my things in reach.” Staff described how they supported people to maintain independence with personal care tasks such as washing and brushing their own teeth. One staff member told us how people’s mobility was assessed by trained staff which helped to assess their level of independence.

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.

We observed call bells ringing for over 10 minutes records confirmed significant delays. People consistently told us staff did not always respond promptly to their requests for support. For example, one person said, “It’s different at night and in the day, at night they are quite fast but, in the day, it can take around 40 minutes and this happens quite regularly and depends on the staff.”

Staff did not always take time to listen to and understand people’s needs. We saw one person reaching out to staff for support in the communal area, several staff waved to them and continued to walk past them. A member of the inspection team offered reassurance, and a further staff member began to communicate with them about an activity they were engaged with. A staff member told us, “There are no communication aids for this person and staff who know them generally understand their communication needs.” Relatives and people told us staff responded to changes in health conditions and sought support from their GP when required. One person told us, “Staff act quickly if I need help.”

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff, and support and enable staff to always deliver person-centred care. Staff had not all received the training and support they needed. Some staff told us they had not completed training in Dementia. One told us, “We haven’t had training in dementia, but I am aware this is one that’s coming.” Most staff had not received training in supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people. Systems for assessing risks and developing care plans were not robust and this did not always provide staff with the information they needed to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they were happy working at Drumconner Lancing and described a consistent staff team. One staff member said, “We all tried to muck in and act as a team, staffing levels could be better though.” And “It’s really lovely here.” One staff member said they felt well supported in their role, they told us, “They are really good, I had a personal issue, and the registered manager was very supportive responded quickly relieved my pressure.” Following our assessment the provider shared information about professional development opportunities and wellbeing resources available to staff.