Moss Cottage 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.

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.

People and their relatives gave mixed feedback about how they or their loved ones were treated by staff. For example, we were told, “The staff are sometimes not very nice. They don't allow enough time for me to do things myself.” However, another person told us, “The staff are good and treat me with dignity and respect.”

Some people told us they were not supported in their preferences.

On the day of our inspection, we observed mixed staff interactions with people.

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. Care plans did not always include information about people's cultural and religious needs.

People and relatives told us they had not always been involved in writing or reviewing their care plans. Care plans did not include favourite food preferences and where people had specific cultural food preferences it was not clear how the provider was supporting this preference. One person commented, “The staff do not treat me consistently here.”

The provider told us they knew there was work to do on individual care plans and had identified it as a gap. An action plan was in place but progress in this area was slow.

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.

We received mixed reviews from people about care provided. People were not consistently involved in planning or reviewing their care. There was limited information about people’s preferences and what they could do for themselves. As a result, people did not always have full control or choice over their care and how it was delivered. One person told us, “I don't have regular showers, but I would need support from carers to have them. They keep me clean with daily strip washes.”

Some people felt staff did not allow them to go where they wanted with one person telling us, “They no longer allow me to go downstairs, which I was able to do when I came in at first, because my balance and legs have been so affected.” On the first day of our visit the communal areas were not used by people, but by the final visit this space was used more frequently by people and there was more opportunities for people to socialise and engage with each other and staff. The provider told us that people were encouraged to access the communal lounge.

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.

We found the call bells had not been working and some people were unable to use the buzzer and called out for help. We observed a resident calling out for help as they did not have a call bell. We found there was no complete care plan or risk assessment to guidance staff on how this person should be supported. People who expressed distress through behaviour did not always have detailed positive behaviour care plans. Staff guidance was reactive. Feedback from people about how quickly staff respond to requests for help varied with one person telling us, “They come quickly if I use my buzzer.”

Staff told us more permanent staff were needed to support people and their needs. At the time of our assessment, the service relied on a high number of agency staff to support the service.

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.

Staff demonstrated commitment to the people they supported. The provider did not consistently demonstrate that staff received the support, supervision and professional development needed to sustain high-quality person-centred care. For example, care plans were not always completed before people were admitted to the home. This meant staff did not have the information needed to support people’s individual needs.

Whilst the home manager told us they had an open-door policy and would support staff with flexible arrangements where needed there was no formal workforce wellbeing initiatives.