Cheybassa Lodge Rest 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to how people were not supported in a person-centred way.

This service scored 35 (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, or respect their privacy and dignity.

The concerns we found about people's safety showed there was a lack of understanding from staff as to how to care for people in a compassionate and dignified way.

There were insufficient bathing and shower facilities, and this did not promote choice or a dignified and relaxing experience. People could not access the bath and 1 person declined to use the shower due to the poor environment. Some people looked unkempt with greasy hair, poor oral hygiene and long and unclean nails. Care records showed people did not always receive personal care in line with their needs and wishes. This did not demonstrate dignified care.

We observed times where people were displaying anxiety and agitation, and staff were either unavailable to help or appeared to not understand how to support people with these needs effectively. Despite this, we saw instances where staff supported people with kindness and in a caring and compassionate way. People told us the staff were kind, and relatives were very positive about the caring nature of the staff. Comments included, “The staff are always helpful always smiling. I wouldn’t know what else to ask for, they are easy to contact.” and “The staff are fabulous, but they are always busy so no time.”

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s care plans held limited information about their strengths, unique characteristics, life history and communication needs. This meant we could not be assured staff could be guided by peoples’ care records to support people effectively. One staff member told us the new digital care plans did not contain sufficient information about people’s individual needs or history. Despite this, staff sometimes demonstrated they knew people’s individual preferences, and some spoke about people with good knowledge.

We observed there was limited social activities and stimulation to meet people’s social needs and wellbeing. Care records demonstrated people who spent all their time in their bedrooms mostly only had interaction when staff supported them with their physical needs. This meant people’s social needs were not met and increased the risk of social isolation for those in their rooms. Two people told us they stayed in their rooms as there was nothing to do and no reason to leave them. A relative told us, “[Person] is very lonely. There’s no stimulation for her.” A health professional said, “The home appeared quite lifeless and visibly dirty during our visit, there were no activities taking place and minimal interaction seen with residents by the staff present.” We discussed our concerns with the registered manager who told us of their plan to improve activities. They had started an exercise group in the mornings. However, during the first day of our inspection, we saw only 1 person taking part in this which lasted for 7 minutes. There was no evidence that consideration had been given about people’s individual preferences about whether an exercise group each morning would suit them. This meant people were at risk of not receiving activities that supported their unique interests, hobbies or preferences.

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

While we observed some basic choices were offered, inconsistent support and inadequate activity provision prevented people from consistently exercising independence and control over their daily lives. This limited opportunities for personal development. Some people told us there was a lack of choice in relation to meals, snacks, drinks and activities. Some said they had not been involved in the development of their care plan, and another person told us they were not supported with guidance from an external professional to increase their independence.

Care plans did not always outline what people could do for themselves or how staff could support people in being more independent. There were no records that demonstrated people had been supported to have choice and control over their care.

The nominated individual told us they were in the process of improving the culture in the home. However, at the time of the inspection, they were unable to demonstrate how they monitored the quality of care and whether people were supported to have independence, choice and control.

Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We saw people who were distressed and required staff support, but this was not provided in a timely or effective manner. For example, 2 people spent most of their time in the lounge and were frequently displaying high anxiety and agitation. We observed a lack of meaningful interaction from staff to support them. Another person continued to walk the same path for most of the 1st day of our inspection. Staff told us and records demonstrated this happened on a frequent basis.

We observed 1 person who was cared for in bed in a position that increased the risk of pain and injury. Another person who was cared for in bed was experiencing pain. We needed to ask staff to support them.

One person’s mattress was showing a fault meaning it may not work effectively and increase the risk of skin damage for the person. Staff told us it had been like this for 3-4 days. Staff from a partner agency told us that although the new mattress was in the building, they needed to prompt staff to put it on the person’s bed.

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 told us they felt supported in their roles and could raise concerns with leaders. Despite this, there was limited evidence of initiatives or structured support in place to promote workforce wellbeing. There was inconsistent support for staff, combined with deployment challenges, which negatively impacted staff morale, and indirectly affected the quality and safety of care provided to people. For example, whilst a leader was unavailable a senior staff member was required to work 72 hours a week for a 2-week period. In this time, they were also on call for the remaining hours. Another staff member told us they tried to take allocated breaks, but these were sometimes cut short due to the needs of people. Despite this, all staff were positive about the new registered manager. For example, a staff member said, “[Registered manager] is trying her best to get things sorted. She’s supportive and approachable and we can talk to her whenever we need to.”

When we raised our concerns with the nominated individual they arranged for additional staff support. A staff member told us this had made some improvements to their work. The nominated individual also told us of their plans to recruit more staff, including a deputy manager.