Archived: St. Catherines Residential Care 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.

This service scored 55 (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. Although people’s privacy and dignity was respected in many aspects of their care, the provider’s failure to properly manage the use of CCTV surveillance, and people’s consent to this, impacted on these. For example, a CCTV monitoring screen was visible from a communal hallway on the service’s ground floor. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People told us staff were kind and caring and they felt well supported by staff who showed compassion and were respectful. A person told us, “The staff are all very good. They are always happy and around for you.” We saw staff engaged with people during the inspection about things which mattered to them. We saw staff offered comfort to people when they became distressed. Staff were seen talking with people about their family and carrying out activities which people were enjoying.

We received positive feedback from people and their relatives about the approach staff adopted to their work. One relative told us, “If I ask for anything, staff respond immediately, so there’s nothing lingering. The residents are always talked to and feel involved.” Another said, “I have a lot of confidence in the staff. They know everyone very well and genuinely seem to care.”

During our inspection we observed some positive interactions and saw staff treated people with kindness and respected people’s privacy and dignity.

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.

Whilst each person had their own care plan, we found care plans were not always reflective of people’s current needs. The information and guidance for staff within these were, at times, outdated and required updating. For example, staff had not always been provided with clear information and guidance on how to support people with their health conditions or manage associated risks. The registered manager told us they would review the process of updating people’s care plans. However no immediate actions were taken by the provider to update people’s care plans to reflect their changing needs.

Although staff knew how people wanted to be supported, this was not always reflected in their care plans.

We saw that people’s bedrooms were personalised with their chosen items, such as photos and belongings important to them.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported by staff to maintain their independence. For example, people had access to appropriate equipment, such as walking frames to help maximise their mobility.

However, our observations of mealtime at the service indicated people’s choices about what they ate and drank were not fully supported.

People’s choices and preferences were not consistently documented within their care plans. As a result, there was limited information regarding their personal likes and dislikes. The absence of this information meant care staff would not be able to deliver truly personalised care and support. This was a missed opportunity to engage with people in a meaningful and person-centred way.

Some people who were reliant on staff for most activities of daily living, were encouraged to undertake some aspects of their personal care, such as washing their face and hands, and brushing their teeth, to maximise their independence.

People and relatives told us they or their family members were always treated with respect and dignity. Comments included, “The staff are kind and respectful”, and “My family can come and see me when they like.” People received support with their personal care in private and staff were discreet when asking people if they required support to have their comfort needs met. We observed that people were supported to maintain their personal appearance to ensure their self-esteem and sense of self-worth. People were supported to wear clothing of their own choice.

People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them, including contact with family members and friends. The service supported visits for people living at St Catherines Residential Care Home and people were able to receive visitors without restrictions.

We received some positive feedback from people and their relatives on people’s support to engage in activities they found enjoyable. One relative told us “The activities have varied over time. [Person] loves being involved in activities even though [person] is immobile now.”

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.

Staff responded promptly when call bells were activated and were available to provide support without delay. One person commented, “Staff come quickly when you press the buzzer, except when they are busy.”

We also observed a situation in which a person had experienced a fall. Staff responded quickly and professionally, ensuring the person was made comfortable. A staff member provided reassurance by holding the person’s hand and offering comfort while waiting for paramedics to arrive.

The provider did not consistently support staff wellbeing or enablement. Although the registered manager stated that staff had received supervision, they acknowledged recent challenges due to personal circumstances and confirmed gaps in supervision and appraisal records. The provider assured us these processes would be resumed and maintained.

Some staff told us they received support from the management team, noting that they were approachable. However, the management team did not consistently provide daily guidance and direction to help staff deliver person-centred care effectively.

Staff reported that the provider was supportive of their wellbeing and accommodated various working patterns. The provider had recruited staff with specific support needs, with reasonable adjustments considered. However, no related risk assessments had been completed at the time of the inspection. We raised this with the provider who acted on this and implemented appropriate measures.