Good Shepherd Nursing 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Relatives we spoke with gave positive feedback about the approach of staff. One relative told us, “We leave the room when they come to reposition or change my family member. They like to keep it private for them.” Another relative said, “The staff like us to go out of the room, when they’re moving my family member or providing care. It makes more space for the hoist too.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People living at Clarendon Court Nursing Home were respected as individuals, with life histories and varied interests. Although we found the service lacked a structured activity planner, and the outside space was limited; we saw people were supported individually to engage in activities which they enjoyed. Each person had a television and music system in their bedrooms. With some people having lighting to aid sensory stimulation. One relative told us, “The carers are all wonderful. My family member likes having a laugh with them too. There’s always staff upstairs if anything is needed and they’re more attentive to them here than in the hospital.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People’s preferences were respected by the staff team. Care plans we reviewed had clearly recorded people’s preferences, wishes and feelings. Staff we spoke with understood the importance of respecting these and enabling people’s independence where they could. Where people could not communicate verbally, we observed positive interactions between staff and people, which demonstrated relationships were caring and compassionate.

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.

Relatives were positive about the responsiveness of the staff team. One relative told us, “My family member can hear and use their eyes, and they will smile and laugh to the staff. The staff chat all the while even though my family member can’t verbally communicate back.”

Care records included, how either through verbal or non-verbal means, people were able to refuse or give consent for specific decisions. Staff we spoke with understood people well and could explain how people preferred to be approached. Where people could not communicate verbally, we observed interactions between staff and people which demonstrated relationships were caring and compassionate. Staff knowledge of people and their identified needs enabled staff to anticipate and meet people’s needs quickly and in ways that reduced and mitigated people’s discomfort and distress.

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 we spoke with raised concerns about the pressure they felt when staffing numbers were low. Some staff had been contacted whilst they were on rest days or on annual leave. The service employed staff across 2 services, which were adjoining, which some relatives and partner agencies felt was confusing. One relative told us, “The staff move between both units, so my family member sees many different faces. Occasionally, their strong accents can be difficult to understand, especially as my family member’s hearing is bad.”

We discussed the impact of the lack of staffing continuity with the provider, who submitted updated plans for staffing rotas and the deployment of staff. We will review these at our next assessment.