We carried out a review of the data available to us about Port Regis on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Port Regis, you can give feedback on this service.
Port Regis is a care home that provides personal or nursing care for up to 70 older people who may be living with dementia. The service has two units, the main house and the west wing. There were 25 people living in each unit at the time of the inspection.
People’s experience of using this service:
People told us they felt safe living at Port Regis, people appeared to be happy and relaxed during the inspection.
Potential risks to people’s health, welfare and safety had been assessed and there was guidance in place to mitigate the risks to keep people safe. People were supported to take positive risks to remain as independent as possible.
Each person had a care plan that contained details about their choices and preferences, which were reviewed regularly.
People received their medicines as prescribed to keep them as healthy as possible.
Staff monitored people’s health and referred them to health professionals when required. The guidance received was followed and people’s health had improved. People told us they had a choice of meals and they enjoyed their food.
Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed to identify any patterns and trends, action had been taken and there had been a reduction in incidents.
Checks and audits were completed, when shortfalls were identified action was taken to rectify them and improve the service.
People were supported by enough staff to meet their needs, who had been recruited safely.
People were encouraged to make decisions about their care, when this was not possible decisions were made in people’s best interest with people who knew them well.
Complaints had been investigated following the provider’s policy.
People knew the provider and registered manager, they were comfortable going to the office and chatted with them when they saw them around the service.
We observed people being treated with respect and their dignity was maintained.
Rating at last inspection:
Requires Improvement (report published 16 May 2018).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. We found the service now met the characteristics of Good in all areas. The overall rating is now Good.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Port Regis is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Port Regis accommodates up to 70 older people who may be living with dementia, across two units, each of which have separate adapted facilities. The West Wing unit provided support for people living with dementia who had complex needs. The House provided support to people who may be living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 59 people living at the service.
We carried out a comprehensive inspection on 8 and 9 February 2017 and the service was rated Good. This inspection was prompted by information from the local authority, other health professionals and relatives that they had concerns about staff skills, increased risk to people’s safety and about the leadership within the service.
There was a registered manager leading the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.
Potential risks to people’s health and welfare had been identified, but had not been assessed and there was a lack of detailed guidance for staff to mitigate the risks. Checks had been completed on the environment and equipment used by staff to keep people safe. However, not all staff had completed a fire drill and practised using the evacuation equipment available. People had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPS) but these did not contain photos of people and detailed information about how to support them in an emergency.
Medicines were not always managed safely. Records were not accurately completed including how many medicines were available. Without accurate records, there was a risk that people would not receive their medicines as prescribed.
The registered manager and provider did not always understand their regulatory responsibility. The registered manager had not informed the Care Quality Commission of incidents that had happened between people, as required by the regulations. Staff were not recruited safely. The registered manager had not obtained a full employment history for all staff and had not taken appropriate action when issues had been identified with staff criminal records checks. The rating for the service had not been displayed on the provider’s website.
The registered manager completed audits to check the quality of the service provided. These audits did not include all areas of the service such as care plans and recruitment. The audits completed had not identified the shortfalls found at this inspection. Accidents and incidents had been recorded and action had been taken, however, the recording of what had happened following an incident was not all recorded in one place. This made oversight of all incidents, action taken and learning difficult.
People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service to ensure staff were able to meet people’s needs. The assessment covered all aspects of people’s physical and mental health, social and cultural needs. Each person had a care plan, however, the care plan did not always reflect the care and support the person was receiving. This did not impact on people as staff knew them well and understood their needs, choices and preferences. People were not consistently asked about their end of life wishes. The registered manager told us that they were going to make this part of the assessment process.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. However, records did not always support this practice. When required Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been applied for and authorised.
Staff received training appropriate to their role. The training used for staff however, could be improved so that staff were skilled in current best practice in basic subjects, as well as in subjects related to people’s needs including diabetes, catheter care and dementia. We have made a recommendation about staff training. Staff received infection control training and we observed staff putting this into practice during the inspection.
New staff completed an induction and were assessed as competent before they worked independently. Staff received regular supervision and appraisal to discuss their development and training needs. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and were able to raise any concerns they may have and these would be acted on.
The provider had a policy about safeguarding people from harm and abuse that staff could refer to for guidance. Staff we spoke with were clear about what abuse was and how to report any concerns and they would not hesitate to report any concerns to the registered manager or to the Care Quality Commission.
Staff monitored people’s health and referred them to healthcare professionals when changes occurred. People had access to opticians, dentists and chiropodists to help keep them healthy. People were encouraged to eat a healthy diet, people who required a special diet or assistance with their meals were supported by staff. People had enough to eat and drink, there were snacks and drinks available throughout the day.
People were able to take part in activities they enjoyed. People were supported to continue with hobbies such as knitting, that they had enjoyed before they moved into the service. People were treated with dignity and respect by staff. Staff had built relationships with people and their families, and understood people’s needs. People were supported to maintain relationships with people who were important to them. Staff supported people to be as independent as possible and to plan their care.
There had been three complaints in the last year. The registered manager had investigated and responded to the complaints following the procedure. Changes that had been made in response to the complaints had been recorded.
The registered manager and provider wanted the service to be homely and for people to feel that it was their home from home. Staff shared this vision and felt it was important that they should be surrounded by things that made them feel at home. However, the registered manager was unable to show how they empowered people and achieved good outcomes for them individually.
People, relatives and staff were asked for their opinions on the quality of the service. The results of the surveys were analysed and an action plan was put in place, the registered manager had taken action to address issues raised.
The registered manager worked with outside agencies such as commissioning and the local safeguarding team. The service had links to the community including local scout groups, who had meetings in the grounds of the service.
The registered manager attended local forums such as the care home forum to keep up to date with developments; however, the lack of systems for recording evidence meant that improvements had not always been evidenced.
The building had been adapted to meet people’s needs and there was signage in place appropriate to help people living with dementia to understand.
At this inspection breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 was identified. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of the report.
Port Regis is located on the outskirts of Broadstairs. It is a large building with two separate parts set over two floors. Some bedrooms had en-suite toilets and wash rooms. The service provides accommodation for a maximum of 70 people and provides care to older people and those living with dementia. There were 50 people living at the service when we carried out our inspection.
We last inspected the service on 18, 19 November and 4 December 2015. At this time the service was rated requires improvement and the providers were working through their action plan.
The service has a registered manager who has worked in the home for many years and was present during the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Improvements had been on-going since the last inspection. There was a more positive, upbeat culture in the main home and the West Wing. The main part of the home is large and there are various different areas of the home that people may choose to spend time in. Activities were mainly being held in the large lounge or in the activities room in the West Wing, so people could choose to participate or not. Staff were attentive to people. In between giving care, staff walked around the different parts of the home to check on people, they stopped to talk with people and sat in the communal parts of the home when writing records.
There were three activities coordinators all organising a variety of different activities throughout the week in both the main home and the West Wing. People said they had enough to occupy themselves. Some people did not want to join in with the activities but enjoyed a chat with the staff and watching the children playing in the garden outside the window. A nursery for children was next door to the service.
There were enough staff to keep people safe. Staff were checked before they started working with people to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills and experience to support people effectively. Staff had received sufficient training and guidance to make sure they knew how to support people safely and in the way they preferred. Staff had achieved vocational qualifications or were working towards them. Staff received regular supervision and support from the registered manager who worked alongside them some of the time, checking practice and giving feedback as needed.
The staff teams in both the main house and the West Wing were organised so that there was always a member of staff in each lounge, to make sure that staff were available if people needed support. Staff sat with people chatting at times when it was quiet and offering magazines and activities. People said they appreciated this and people who were unable to comment looked visibly calmer and brighter in response to the staff interaction.
The registered manager and staff team had spent time discussing and considering different ways of working that would be more productive and provide person centred care. Staff were encouraged to talk to each other and comment if staff did something particularly well or if they could maybe improve something. This had started at the last inspection and it was clear that this had been embedded in the culture and had produced improvements in the way people worked together. As a whole the team behaved and worked more confidently. People were complimentary of the staff. Staff said the expectations of their roles were clearer. Staff said the shift planning and daily recording documentation were useful and helped them keep up to date with individual needs and changes with people’s care.
The registered manager and team had worked hard to update and review the care planning and risk assessment system. Each person had a care plan that included their preferences and all the information necessary to meet their individual needs. People were involved in the assessments and planning and staff had a good understanding of making sure people had the right support to make decisions and give consent to care. This included support needed in regard to the Mental Capacity Act.
People were supported to keep well and healthy and if they became unwell the staff responded promptly and made sure that people accessed the appropriate services. Visiting health professionals including district nurses and doctors were involved in supporting people’s health and wellbeing as needed. People received their medicines safely and when they needed them, by staff who were trained and competent.
People were supported to eat a healthy varied diet and at their own pace. There was a good variety of homemade cooked food and people were complimentary of the meals provided, said they were well fed and there were lots of choices. Staff had gone out of their way to make sure people had the food they fancied.
Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities regarding safeguarding and staff were confident the registered manager would act if any concerns were reported to them. Consideration had been given to people’s safety and potential risks had been assessed. People had the equipment and support needed to prevent unnecessary accidents and incidents.
The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Mental capacity assessments had been carried out to determine people’s level of capacity to make decisions in their day to day lives and for more complex decisions when needed. DoLS authorisations were in place, or applications had been made, for people who needed constant supervision because of their disabilities.
Most of the staff in the team had worked in the home for many years. Senior staff were given areas of responsibility and this helped make sure things got done. The daily work planners had been developed and staff said this helped make sure people were supported well and everyone knew what they were doing.
The registered manager had considered people’s feedback and made improvements on the basis of these. There was a development plan for the service following on from what people had said and ideas were being discussed and considered. A development plan was being constructed based on research of good practice conducted by the owner and registered manager.
People and their visitors told us that if they had a concern they would speak to the registered manager or any of the staff. There was a clear complaints procedure and opportunities for people to share their views and experiences of the service.
Services that provide health and social care to people are required to inform the Care Quality Commission, (the CQC), of important events that happen in the service. This is so we could check that appropriate action had been taken. The registered manager was aware that they had to inform CQC of significant events in a timely way. Notifiable events that had occurred at the service had been reported. Records were stored safely and securely.
This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 18, 19 November and 4 December 2015.
Port Regis is located on the outskirts of Broadstairs. It is a large building with two separate parts set over two floors. Some bedrooms had en-suite toilets and wash rooms. The service provides accommodation for a maximum of 70 people and provides care to older people and those living with dementia. There were 56 people living at the service when we carried out our inspection.
We last inspected the service on 20 and 22 January 2015. At this time the service was rated inadequate and was in breach of some of the regulations. Since the last inspection improvements had been made and the providers were working through their action plan to meet the regulations.
The service has a registered manager who has worked in the home for many years and was present on the last day of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People said the staff were good and they felt safe but people in the main part of the home also said they got very fed up. On one occasion during the inspection four people told us they did not like the home very much and one person said, “It isn’t as good as it used to be.”
Since the last inspection another activities coordinator had been employed so that there was one person based in each part of the home. Different activities were organised during parts of the day. People were treated with dignity and respect. At times, staff were busy and did not have time to spend with people.
Our observations suggested that despite the increase in activities available in the main home, people still spent long periods of time with nothing to do and had their heads down, staring and dozing. This was less apparent in the West Wing where there was quite a bit of general activity that people were watching. People were more active walking around and stopping to chat to people of their own accord. Some people were partially hearing or partially sighted and this made it more difficult for them to find things of interest to do.
Staff had received basic training and had a good knowledge of each person’s care and support needs. The registered manager was developing the staff training and some courses had been booked with external trainers. There was no system to check the effectiveness of training and if it had improved staff’s way of working. This was an area for improvement.
People felt that there were enough staff to support them. Agency staff were being used while permanent staff were being recruited. Recruitment procedures were thorough to ensure only suitable staff were employed.
People were supported to eat a healthy varied diet and at their own pace. People would benefit from mealtimes being arranged so that they were a more actively social occasion. Staff took their time to make sure people were supported properly to come into the dining room and many people needed help with walking aids or one of the hoists. It took a considerable time for everyone to be seated ready for their meal before the food was brought through so the first few people to come into the dining room had been sitting waiting with nothing to do.
The two parts of the home were organised separately and there was a different atmosphere in each. The West Wing was set up to support people who lived with dementia and was light and spacious. The main home had high ceilings and wood panelling and the rooms were large. This part of the home seemed “austere”, as one visitor described it, and effort had been made to make it look more homely. Some improvements had been made to the décor and furnishings and new easy chairs had been bought. The chairs had been arranged in smaller groups rather than at the edge of the lounge so that people could socialise more easily. The layout of the West Wing seemed more homely despite the practical lino flooring in the lounge area. The flooring had recently been laid and needed to be replaced in the dining room because it had bubbled up. There had been improvements to the cleanliness in the home with an increase in cleaning hours and revised cleaning schedules. Some improvements had been made to the premises to make it suitable for people’s needs, including new flooring and chairs. Redecoration was in progress to help orientate people with dementia and sensory difficulties. Signs and symbols were also being placed around the home to assist people. This was a work in progress so was still an area for improvement.
The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Mental capacity assessments had been carried out to determine people’s level of capacity to make decisions in their day to day lives and for more complex decisions when needed. DoLS authorisations were in place, or applications had been made, for people who needed constant supervision because of their disabilities.
Most of the staff in the team had worked in the home for many years. Senior staff were given areas of responsibility and this helped make sure things got done.
People’s health and wellbeing was supported by regular visits from healthcare professionals. There were clear medicines procedures and medicines were given out and stored safely. Each person had a care plan detailing their needs and any potential risks. The registered manager was in the process of updating the care plans and risk assessments.
The owner and registered manager talked about how they were focusing on developing an open culture within the staff team. Staff meetings and handovers were being held more regularly and discussion about practice was encouraged during the meetings. Staff were also encouraged to comment on each other’s attitude and working practice both to praise and to highlight where they felt behaviour and comments could be misinterpreted and improved. Staff said they had welcomed this and felt comfortable discussing issues with each other.
Systems were in place to monitor and audit the quality of service people received and to gain people’s views but this had not yet resulted in a plan to develop and improve the service. There was a complaints procedure and all complaints were responded to and acted on.
This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 20 and 22 January 2015.
Port Regis is located on the outskirts of Broadstairs. It is a large building with two separate wings set over two floors. Some bedrooms are en-suite. The service provides accommodation for a maximum of 70 people and provides care to older people and those living with dementia. There were 56 people living at the service when we carried out our inspection.
The service had a registered manager who was present on both days of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Policies and procedures were in place relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These safeguards protect the rights of people using services by ensuring if there are any restrictions to their freedom and liberty, these have been authorised by the local authority as being required to protect the person from harm. When people did not have the capacity to make more complex decisions appropriate advice was not always sought, although DoLS applications were applied for.
Risks to people were not managed safely. People told us they felt safe but there were situations when people’s safety was being compromised because staff did not make sure that people were monitored and checked regularly. People were in unsafe situations and care plans did not give guidance about how to reduce the risk of this happening. The environment did not always support people to stay safe or help them to orientate themselves because there was a lack of signage and some people could not find their bedrooms. There had been some improvements in the cleanliness of the kitchens, but there were shortfalls in other areas as infection control procedures were not always followed.
Staff understood what abuse was and knew about the importance of whistle blowing, but were not confident that any concerns they had raised were acted on. The registered manager did not take timely and appropriate action when staff reported an incident of abuse. Staff told us that morale was low and that they did not feel well supported by the registered manager and provider. Staff did not feel that the training gave them the skills, competencies and confidence to meet people’s needs.
Most of time people felt there were enough staff but also said they thought there were times when staff were not around to help them. Staff interactions with people varied. Staff mostly treated people in a kind and respectful manner, but there were times when staff did not treat people with consideration or fully respect their dignity.
People received their medicines when they needed them, but were at risk of receiving the wrong creams because staff did not make sure that people had their own creams when they needed them. People received appropriate healthcare support. Advice and guidance was sought from relevant health care professionals such as GP’s, district nurses and dieticians.
People enjoyed their meals and were offered a range of nutritious and suitable foods. The provision of activities varied and not everyone was supported to be involved in meaningful pastimes that met their needs and suited their preferences. Care plans did not take into account people’s life histories and what their preferences were.
The complaints procedure was on display, but was not accessible for people who could not mobilise or had poor vision. People felt they could talk to staff but there were no systems to help people make their opinions known.
Audits and quality assurance processes were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided, but these were not effective because they had not identified the shortfalls we found.
Staff knew what the aims and objectives of the service were. We have made recommendations to the provider so that they can make improvements to the service.
The last inspection was carried out in June 2014. At that inspection we found breaches in regulations and asked the provider to make improvements. We asked for an action plan and received this within the stated timescales. At this inspection we found some changes had been made but also found further breaches of regulations.
We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
We spoke with 12 people who lived in the home, four visitors, staff, the registered manager and provider. We also spent time looking at various records, observing staff and touring the building.
A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people who used the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;
' Is the service safe?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service well led?
This is a summary of what we found:
Is the service safe?
People who used the service were at risk because the environment was not maintained appropriately to ensure that cleanliness and hygiene standards had been maintained to protect people from the risk of infection.
People's needs were assessed and staffing levels were organised to meet people's needs. The provider was considering the use of a new tool to work out people's needs more effectively.
Staff understanding of the needs of the people who used the service protected people from risk of harm. However, we noted that a lack of information in care plans did not promote consistency of care.
Is the service effective?
There were improved safeguarding procedures in the home, although there was a lack of clear guidance to ensure that staff knew the appropriate steps to take.
When people moved into the home an assessment was carried out to check a person's individual capacity with regard to their ability to make decisions. There was no evidence that this was reviewed to take into account people's changing needs.
People were supported by staff who had accessed training and received an induction so that they understood the needs of the people who used the service.
The service provided a suitable variety of food to meet people's nutritional needs and to provide them with sufficient choice. People enjoyed the meals although some people told us there meals were cold by the time they got them and this was because in the West Wing there were no facilities to keep the meals warm before serving.
People were supported to attend health appointments, such as, doctors or dentists. We saw records to show that the service worked closely with health and social care professionals to maintain and improve people's health and well-being.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and supportive staff. One person told us "Staff are very kind to me." A relative said 'I cannot complain about the way x is looked after'.
Overall the interactions we observed between the staff and people were open and friendly. Staff knew each person well and were able to tell us what people's individual needs were.
The home provided a variety of activities and entertainment for people to join in with as they wished. Although we noted that people who chose not to join in activities spent much of their time without any meaningful interactions from staff.
Is the service responsive?
Accidents were recorded. There were systems in place to audit these but the process was not robust as these were not carried out regularly such as monthly.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted for the people using the service one person needed monitoring which had the potential to impact on their liberty.
Surveys were sent to people who used the service. We saw that the feedback the service received was positive.
The complaints procedure was accessible and visitors told us that if they raised any concerns they were acted upon.
Is the service well led?
Quality assurance systems were in place but were not consistently applied. Monitoring and audits carried out on different aspects of the service were not carried out on a regular basis and therefore any issues were not always addressed in a timely manner. Some of the issues we identified during our visit had not been picked up by the quality assurance system.
The manager and provider were active in the home and people who used the service knew them well and were happy to talk to them.
The service had developed links with other organisations in order to promote the safety and well-being of people who used the service.
People said that they were very happy with the care and support they received and that their needs were being met in all areas. They said that the staff treated them with respect, listened to them and supported them to raise any concerns they had about their care. People told us that the service responded to their health needs quickly and that the manager talked to them regularly about their plan of care and any changes that may be needed.
Many comments received were complimentary of the service. One lady said, 'It's lovely here'. Another person said 'I'm quite happy here. Staff treat me well'. Other people were complimentary of the food and had no concerns with regard to the quality of care.
People said that they had an active say on ways to improve their care. The manager said that they were receptive to comments and concerns and strived to resolve any issues as soon as possible. People had their comments and complaints listened to and acted on, without the fear that they would be discriminated against for making a complaint. Staff told us if a person using the service complained to them they would report it to the manager. Staff were confident that people were able to express concerns if necessary.
We spoke to a relative who visited every day. They told us 'There seems to be enough staff, they are very attentive. They are there when they are needed. The staff are very welcoming and friendly' and 'There is always someone in the office to talk to.'
A relative said 'The laundry is good, X has clean clothes on every day and their bed is clean and fresh.'
Since our last inspection the provider had taken action to address the shortfalls identified. Staff had been recruited to a flexi bank of staff who stepped in at short notice to cover emergencies including staff sickness.
The manager and provider had reviewed the staffing structure and looked at more effective staff deployment. The manager had introduced a new rota system and now encouraged staff to work shifts on both units of the home. They said that this had increased team work and flexibility within the staff team.
The manager monitored staffing levels every day to ensure that there were always enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.
People said staff always asked their permission and explained what they were doing when carrying out care and treatments. Relatives told us that the staff treated people with respect.
Relatives and people using the service said that the care was good but sometimes they had to wait for staff to attend to them. They said this could be a problem if they wanted to go to the toilet.
People said that the home and their rooms were kept clean.
A relative commented that the staff do not stop and speak to people using the service who do not have visitors when they are walking around.
Another relative said, "staff are kind and patient".
A relative said they have got to know the staff. They also commented, "The owners are good they come around often and have a chat."
Another relative said if they did have any concerns they would speak to the manager or the person in charge of the West Wing.
The provider may find it useful to note that some of the comments about the service gave us conflicting information. Some relatives commented that the manager takes any comments as criticism which makes it difficult to complain. There had been some complaints about the laundry. People said some of their clothes had gone missing. One relative said they now preferred to do the washing themselves. This meant that sometimes not all complaints were resolved satisfactorily by the service but people found their own way round it.
People said they were supported with medical conditions and taking their medication as much as they wanted. People said their visitors were welcomed.
People who needed support with their mobility said they were supported in the way they wanted and felt safe when being lifted in the hoists. People said they could have a bath when they wanted to.
They said they liked to be as independent as possible and appreciated the fact that the staff gave them the time to do that and did not automatically do things for them.
People said they were offered choices of hot meals and breakfast. People said the staff were ok and they could go to bed when they wanted. Some people using the service needed more assistance when asked to make a choice and so different ways were created to help them. Staff said they had some pictures of food or would serve two dinners and people could pick the one they wanted.
People said they felt safe in the home and it was clean.
People who use services told us that they were happy with their bedrooms and with the communal areas. One person said they liked to sit in the dining room and watch the birds. Another person said that the times for going to bed and getting up were flexible.