Palm Court 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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff treated people with kindness and respected their privacy and dignity.

The atmosphere in the home was welcoming, friendly and calm. Staff were relaxed and happy in their role. People felt they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity in their day-to-day care and support. People and their relatives told us, “Good staff, not loud but always happy and polite and they do treat us with respect,” and “Kind and treat my loved one with respect, {family member] always look clean, fresh and despite being in bed all the time, comfortable.”

Health professionals told us that having permanent staff has really helped the home ‘get back on their feet’, they told us staff know people well and were always professional. One said, “When I visited recently, frankly, things were so much better, more organised, staff were knowledgeable, knew residents well and they stayed with the person to offer support.” Another comment made was, “Much more responsive, let us know quickly if someone is unwell or staff need advice.”

Our observations told us staff were respectful and kind when assisting people with lunch or moving around the home. The mealtimes were calm with dedicated staff assisting people on a 1-1 basis, in a supportive way, encouraging independence through prompting. Staff sat beside people when chatting so they had good eye contact and could be heard easily and we saw staff sitting and reading with people, distracting them when they were anxious.

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 improvements had been made to aspects of care delivery, people still did not always receive personalised care based on their individual needs and preferences. For example, people were not offered a bath despite people telling us they would like a bath. A person said, “I didn’t know they had a bath and I have not been offered one.”

Food choices at mealtimes were not offered, but this was addressed by the management team and we were assured that a choice was now being provided.

People’s communication needs whilst documented did not provide guidance as to how staff could communicate with people who lived with dementia and how this was measured for effectiveness.

There was some evidence to show how people’s likes, dislikes and preferences were used to inform their care, but this still needed to be developed especially for those people who remained on bed rest.

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.

Since the last inspection, people’s care documents had all been reviewed and re-written where necessary. However, the documentation did not evidence how independence was being promoted and maintained, especially for those who had been in the service for a while and were on continuous bed rest. The manager confirmed this was a work in progress.

We spoke with peoples’ families who told us they felt involved and felt able to contribute to their loved one’s care delivery. One visitor said, “I am very involved, and I can’t thank staff enough, it was so hard not having them home, but I can visit and still be important.”

It was identified at the last inspection that there was minimal dementia friendly signage to assist people to orientate to their surroundings. This had not progressed, nor had the sensory rooms been utilised or a quiet lounge been provided for those that struggled with living amongst other people they didn’t really know, or who preferred a quieter sitting area. One person said, “I can’t go to the lounge, so I stay in my room.” This was something the manager was working on at this time but was not able to progress due to low numbers of people living in the service and safe staffing levels.

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.

We observed staff respond to calls quickly and the situation resolved with staff giving re-assurance and support. We saw people being supported when they required it, for example, helping them with activities, walking to their room or to the bathroom and assisting them to eat and drink. Staff also reacted to peoples’ health needs to ensure appropriate healthcare was sought in a timely way. Relatives told us, “They keep an eye on his health, and let me know,” and “Totally trust them, they know when things aren’t right, and needs to see a doctor.”

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Since the last inspection, staff confirmed they had received support and supervision from the management team and were feeling very positive about their job. The supervision matrix demonstrated that supervisions were now taking place regularly. The manager confirmed that she had regular meetings with the nominated individual, but this was not formally recorded.

Staff told us that the new manager and clinical lead had improved staff morale, and they felt valued and supported. Comments included, “It’s so different now, better, I love working here, the manager is so good, works with us and supports us.”

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The management team had worked hard over the past six months to introduce ways of supporting staff. Each staff member had regular supervision, and the management team had an open-door policy to support staff.

All staff we spoke with told us of a supportive management team that provided them with the support and training they needed to be able to provide good care for people. Professional support for staff was balanced with staff welfare and enabled staff to have some flexibility with their work life balance without compromising the actual care being provided to people. Comments from staff included, “I feel supported and happy in my job.” and “If I had a problem, I could go to the manager, or a senior nurse, they are all very approachable, we are appreciative of them.” The service provided an on call system that meant that staff could call a manager at any time for support if needed