Tapton Grove

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.

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, nor did they consistently respect people’s privacy and dignity.During the site visit, staff were observed treating people with kindness and compassion. However, feedback from people who used the service was inconsistent. Whilst some felt that staff were caring and supportive, others reported feeling “alone” at times and expressed concerns that staff did not always know or understand their preferences, personal histories, or needs.People felt that staff listened to them and communicated in a way they could understand. Nevertheless, some individuals felt that staff did not know them well enough to fully respect their wishes and backgrounds. Staff acknowledged challenges in building strong relationships, explaining that they were frequently required to work across different units, which limited their ability to get to know people deeply. One staff said, “Not really (had time to listen to people) because we have to move around different work areas possibly daily, we have no consistency and the residents can't get used to staff, they become untrusting and withdrawn”. People believed that staff responded to their needs as quickly and efficiently as possible. One person commented, “Staff are really good but they move all over the place, they do care and they are there for you when they can be.”Privacy and dignity were not consistently upheld. For example, people’s private information was displayed openly on boards in communal areas, and prescribed items such as fluid thickeners with visible prescription labels were found in the communal kitchen. This not only posed risks to people’s health and safety but also breached their right to confidentiality

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. Most people told us they felt supported to have choice and control over their care, and to make decisions about their treatment and wellbeing. However, this was not always clearly recorded in care documentation. There was limited evidence that people were supported to understand their rights or that their understanding was reviewed throughout their care journey.People were supported to maintain relationships with those important to them. Visitors were welcomed, and many individuals were able to go out independently or visit their families. However, there were concerns that these visits were not always appropriately risk assessed. This posed potential risks to people’s safety and limited the provider’s ability to demonstrate that such freedoms were being managed safely and in line with individual needs. People had access to activities and the local community, and appropriate equipment was available to help promote independence. However, people told us that planned activities were often delayed or cancelled due to staffing shortages. Activity staff were only available during limited hours, which further reduced access to meaningful engagement. Staff told us “We do offer activities but sometimes cancelled or delayed due to staffing, and also due to residents attitudes towards staff changing they refuse to engage”. Whilst the environment and staffing supported some aspects of independence and choice, inconsistent documentation and limited oversight of risk reduced the provider’s ability to ensure that these freedoms were promoted in a safe and person-centred way.

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. Most people told us they felt supported to have choice and control over their care, and to make decisions about their treatment and wellbeing. However, this was not always clearly recorded in care documentation. There was limited evidence that people were supported to understand their rights or that their understanding was reviewed throughout their care journey.People were supported to maintain relationships with those important to them. Visitors were welcomed, and many individuals were able to go out independently or visit their families. However, there were concerns that these visits were not always appropriately risk assessed. This posed potential risks to people’s safety and limited the provider’s ability to demonstrate that such freedoms were being managed safely and in line with individual needs. People had access to activities and the local community, and appropriate equipment was available to help promote independence. However, people told us that planned activities were often delayed or cancelled due to staffing shortages. Activity staff were only available during limited hours, which further reduced access to meaningful engagement. Staff told us “We do offer activities but sometimes cancelled or delayed due to staffing, and also due to residents attitudes towards staff changing they refuse to engage”. Whilst the environment and staffing supported some aspects of independence and choice, inconsistent documentation and limited oversight of risk reduced the provider’s ability to ensure that these freedoms were promoted in a safe and person-centred way.

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.Staff and people using the service told us that staff were not always able to anticipate discomfort, distress, or concerns due to inconsistent staffing. High staff turnover and frequent movement between units meant that staff did not always know people well enough to recognise subtle changes in mood or behaviour.This impacted the ability of staff to remain alert and responsive to people’s immediate needs. It also reduced opportunities to engage people in meaningful conversations about how they were feeling or what they needed in the moment.Despite these challenges, when people required urgent support, staff were generally able to recognise this and respond appropriately. Staff had access to tools and technology such as call bell systems and monitoring devices equipment to assist with monitoring and managing urgent needs and used these when necessary. However, the lack of continuity in staffing made it more difficult for staff to build the awareness and familiarity needed to anticipate and proactively respond to people’s changing needs.

There were risks that people did not consistently receive safe, effective, and person-centred care because the provider had not fully recognised or addressed the wellbeing needs of staff.Staff reported low morale, particularly due to ongoing issues with shift continuity and a lack of regular staffing. This instability not only impacted team dynamics but also affected relationships with people using the service. Staff told us that people often refused care or support from unfamiliar staff, highlighting the importance of continuity in building trust and delivering effective care. Staff said they did not always feel listened to or supported by management. Although some concerns were raised, staff felt these were not consistently acted upon or followed up. They told us there were limited opportunities to give feedback or contribute to service improvements, and that team meetings and supervision sessions were irregular. One staff member said supervision only took place recently because it was specifically requested. There was also a perception that senior leaders were trying to manage the service in the same way as others, without fully understanding the specific challenges faced at this location. Staff described management as not being regularly present or visible within the service, which contributed to a disconnect between frontline experiences and leadership oversight. Staff felt that current staffing approaches focused more on keeping the service operational than on delivering high-quality, person-centred care. These factors combined to create a working environment where staff often felt unsupported, unheard, and under-valued, all of which had a direct impact on their ability to provide consistent and compassionate care.