The Coach House SBDP1 Limited

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (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’s dignity was not always upheld. People were not supported to maintain their personal hygiene and we observed people to be wearing dirty clothes and their hair unkempt. One family member told us how their relative’s hair was “really greasy” when they visited. Another family member said their relative is not supported with putting in their dentures and they can’t eat without them. Our observations showed some people had inappropriate signage above their beds to show they had chosen not to be resuscitated in the event of a medical crisis.

People were not supported to maintain good personal hygiene and daily notes showed people were often found wet with urine. People were also not supported to shower or bathe regularly. Daily notes showed one person only had body washes for 11 days and did not have their hair washed or a shower or bath in this time.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. In one of the units, we saw 14 people were up early in the morning and were in the lounges. Some people were asleep. A review of people’s care records showed this was not in line with their preferences. We observed one person being asked what they would like for breakfast when they were asleep. A staff member we spoke with on the day confirmed they started to get people up at 05:30. Another staff member also confirmed this and stated, “Everyone starts getting up at 05:30, or sometimes earlier. If we don’t start this early, then we will still be getting people up at 12:30.”

People’s food preferences were not always catered for and feedback from relatives told us there was a lack of meaningful activities for people living with hearing and/or sight loss.

Family members told us they thought staff knew their relatives well and understand their care and support needs. We saw people were able to personalise their rooms with items from their home.

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. People’s preferences were not always respected, for example, what time they got up, or when they had a bath. Some family members we spoke with told us their relatives were woken up and supported to bed at set times, or when staff were able to.

We received mixed reviews regarding activity provision and support for people to follow their interests. One family member told us there were not enough suitable activities for their relative and another told us their relative was in bed for most of the day. However, others told us people go to the beach during the summer and on other excursions. The provider told us they have links within the community and have organised for people to go out for afternoon tea and car boot sales. Within the service, people can take part in exercise movement classes which are tailored to people's abilities, arts and crafts and pet therapy. They have also forged a relationship with a local day care centre which offers a range of activities for people. A local priest visits regularly to conduct services.

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. During our inspection we heard one person in their room who was distressed. When we told a member of staff, they entered their room, but we could not hear any reassurance being given. However, we saw another person in one of the lounges who was showing distressed behaviours and we saw staff approached and spoke to them calmly.

Feedback from family members was variable with some telling us staff did not always respond in a timely way and others saying staff will attend quickly.

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 of the staff we spoke with told us they did not always feel valued or listened to when they raised concerns, particularly about not being able to deliver the level of care they wanted to due to not having enough staff.

The provider told us they had started to implement a staff wellbeing programme and they told us they felt staff morale was improving. A counsellor visited the service to speak with staff, and they have appointed a wellbeing ambassador to help to raise awareness of wellbeing. The provider told us they hoped the new initiative would improve morale and teambuilding.