Port Regis

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.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Feedback from people, relatives and professionals about the caring culture of the service were positive. People’s comments included; “It is a lovely place,”, “I have a lovely lady looking after me.” And “The carers are good. They are quite sympathetic and do what they can within their means.”

A relative told us, “Staff are amazing. When they go out they have brought [person’s name] back things [they] like and the staff sit on [their] bed and talk to [them]”. Another said, “It is dignified care.” A professional told us, “The staff are respectful to patients in our presence and know their residents.”

Staff treated people with kindness and respect and preserved their dignity. We observed lovely interactions between people and staff. They stood closely to each other and laughed. Staff gave people praise and compliments to build their confidence. For example, staff noticed and complimented a person on their new haircut.

The provider had systems in place to support staff to deliver kind, compassionate and dignified care. For example, dignity was covered as part of staff’s mandatory training and staff practice was observed to monitor the quality of care.

The provider treated people as individuals. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We observed staff supported people at their own pace, were aware of their strengths and enabled them. For example, a person wanted to move around their home but struggled to stand initially. Staff were patient and supportive. They reassured the person and said they could try again shortly. Staff came back to the person a while later and the person was able to stand and walk to where they wanted to go. This highlighted how staff were mindful of people’s abilities and encouraged people to mobilise independently rather than use a wheelchair, which is best practice.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Staff told us they supported people’s choice and control. A staff member said, “I give people reassurance and choices with their personal care and what to wear, encourage people to wash themselves.”

We observed this in practice. Staff offered people choices of food and drink, where they wanted to be within their home and how they wanted to spend their time including whether they wanted to participate in any activities on offer. A person told us the activities staff went “over and above”. Another person told us, “We go where we want when we want. We can wander around. There are no restrictions. No times we need to go to bed.”

People told us they were supported to be as independent as they were able to be. A person said, “I can still do stuff.” We observed people were supported to independently mobilise around their home. For example, a person told us in a previous home they mobilised with a hoist however here staff encouraged them to use a frame.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes.

People and relatives told us staff were attentive to personal care needs. A relative said, “The conversation between [person’s name] and staff is loving when they are assisting with personal care.”

Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. People told us they had access to buzzers in their room so they could call for help when they needed to. We observed staff responded quickly when people became upset or were anxious. Staff gave people verbal reassurance and encouragement to help calm them. Staff used gentle guidance and contact to re-direct people when required. A staff member gave an example of when a person became confused and upset, they said, “[Person’s name] doesn’t understand, so I sit and talk to [them] and give [them] reassurance."

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.

Some staff felt they had not always been supported by the management team to enable them to carry out their roles effectively and meet people’s needs with appropriate training as reported on under the safe domain. Staff told us they had fed back about the training they needed but this had not yet been actioned. We shared this feedback with the provider who scheduled face to face training for staff following the inspection.

There were some inconsistencies in mechanisms to support staff. Staff meetings had not been held on a regular basis. Some staff told us there were no staff meetings although meeting minutes from bi-monthly staff meetings had recently been recorded. Staff received supervision but records of the discussions had not yet been completed to ensure any actions as a result were met. The management team were aware of this and planned to complete the records and any associated actions.