Saxondale 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. 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 provider was in breach of the legal regulation by failing to support people in a person-centered way.

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 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 kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. One relative said, “They are all really kind to [relative]. They all know [relative]. When they talk to [relative] they smile at them. [Relative] talks about them affectionally. I can recommend the service”. Another relative said, “They just love [relative] there. They manage [relatives] anxiety so well. They know how to calm [relative] down and distract them. All the staff are good with [relative].”

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. Some people’s rooms were homely and personalised with decorations and pictures that were meaningful for them. However, other people’s rooms were very sparsely decorated with minimal personalisation to reflect their interests and things that were important to them. We observed some people appeared unkempt. For example, some people were wearing stained clothing, and some people were observed to be wearing inappropriate footwear, which may place them at an increased risk of falling.

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. Throughout the service there was limited signage to support with orientation around the home. Communal areas of the home were sparse and lacking in things for people to engage with. Access to drinks was restricted because the hydration station had been locked. At lunch time we observed people were not offered a choice of drinks. Staff were observed asking people if they wanted cottage pie or jacket potatoes, but the meal given was sausage and chips. The menu board was displaying the wrong menu which was contradictory of what food was provided. We discovered that call bells had been removed from residents' rooms. As a result, some residents who could have safely used call bells were unable to do so, limiting their ability to ask for help when needed.

Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. For example, staff did not respond when we observed one person becoming anxious and distressed and shouting and swearing at another person in the dining room.

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. Processes were in place to support staff to share their concerns, however these processes had not ensured issues with well-being and morale had been addressed. The management team told us they had implemented processes to support staff to raise concerns. The management team advised that there was an ambition to implement meaningful action from this, these improvements will take time to embed.