St John's 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 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Although people were treated kindly by staff, practices and records did not always reflect a culture that fully valued people. People and relatives consistently described staff as caring and respectful. A relative told us, "The amount of care, compassion and tolerance shown to our [family member] is 100%." Kind interactions between staff and people were seen throughout the inspection. However, dignity was not always promoted. Language used within some care records was not always person-centred. A toilet designated for visitors had been decorated and maintained to a higher standard than bathrooms used by people living at the service. This indicated people were not always afforded the same standards as visitors and did not promote equality, dignity or a person-centred culture.

Concerns were raised by relatives about celebrations and activities ending shortly after photographs had been taken for social media. The registered manager did not recognise this as an ongoing issue but agreed to discuss the feedback with staff. This reduced assurance that activities and celebrations were being planned primarily around people’s individual enjoyment and wellbeing.

People's choices and individuality were not always considered when decisions about their care were made. The service had recognised some areas where a more personalised approach was needed as records did not always demonstrate how people's strengths, backgrounds, culture and personal preferences had been considered when planning care.

However, people felt staff did understand what was important to them and supported them to follow their interests and develop their health. One person told us, “I couldn’t do much when I first arrived, my mobility is slowly improving. Everyone is lovely though.” Another person told us how they were supported to follow their faith and attend church once a month. A relative told us, "I would definitely say they are treated as an individual. There are some [staff] I am quite impressed with as they already know [my family member] quite well."

The provider did not always promote people's independence, choice and control. Opportunities for people to make informed decisions about their care and daily lives were not always maximised.

Independence was promoted in some areas, including medicines management. Although, records relating to this were not always consistent, which meant it was not always clear how people were being supported to remain independent safely.

People were not always supported to make informed choices at mealtimes. Choices were not consistently presented in a way people could easily understand, particularly where people were living with cognitive impairment or communication needs.

People generally had choices about how they spent their time and were encouraged to do as much as possible for themselves, including aspects of washing and dressing. One person told us, "I need help with everything. The [staff] chat with me and I like that." A relative told us, "Yes, they are very good at [promoting independence. However, opportunities to access the community without support from relatives were limited. This reduced opportunities for some people to maintain interests, relationships and independence outside the service.

The provider ensured people received support when they needed it and staff responded to people's immediate needs in a timely way. Staff understood how to recognise and respond to signs of discomfort, distress or concern.

People told us staff were available when support was needed and knew how to obtain additional assistance in an emergency. Observations showed people did not experience significant delays when seeking support and call bells were answered promptly. One person told us, "I’m checked regularly in my room. The call bell is quite good; they have busy times." Another person said, "I get checked but the call bell can be a bit slow at busy times." A relative told us, "They always call me and update [me] and it is always a senior I am talking to."

The provider promoted staff wellbeing and supported staff to carry out their roles effectively. Staff told us they felt valued and supported by the registered manager and spoke positively about working at the service.

Staff described a supportive culture and said they could approach the registered manager and senior staff for advice and guidance. They told us they worked well as a team and felt able to raise concerns. Staff said they received support following incidents and when they were experiencing difficulties at work.

The provider recognised the importance of staff wellbeing and had systems in place to support staff in their roles. Staff feedback was consistently positive and there was a shared commitment to providing person centred care. Feedback from relatives was also positive about the staff team. A relative told us, “I think they are all great.”