The Garth Care Home with Nursing

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 inadequate. 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 75 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.
People and their relatives consistently spoke positively about the kindness and compassion shown by staff. One person told us, “Staff are very caring, they treat us all with kindness and I couldn’t ask for any more”.
A relative told us, “The staff are caring and kind”. Another relative told us, “The staff are very caring towards my husband, staff treat him with care, when administering his personal care and with respect.”
As part of our assessment, we observed interactions between staff and people living in the home. These were consistently positive and demonstrated that staff genuinely cared for the individuals they supported.
 

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. This helped staff get to know people as individuals and see beyond their health needs.
One person told us, “I like living here, the staff are good and always give me a choice”.
A relative told us, “The staff are very caring; they make time to know about dad’s life.”
Staff had a good understanding of people’s likes, dislikes and personal preferences. During both of our onsite visits we saw people being supported to take part in onsite activities that they liked. Staff also told us ways they adapt their approach, or offered alternatives, if a person did not want to complete an activity.
 

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.
One person told us, “Staff help me to have a bath and get dressed, they ask me to do things for myself”.
One relative told us, “Staff support mum to be independent, she is now drinking from normal cups by herself instead of Sippy cups. She walks on her own without any equipment and staff encourage her to.” Another told us, “They are independent, and the staff encourage them to be.”
People were supported to make choices and maintain their independence in their daily lives. During our visit, we observed people moving freely around the home and accessing communal areas, including the dining room, lounges and garden. Some people did this independently, including with the use of mobility aids, while others received support from staff when required.
Staff demonstrated a flexible and person-centred approach to supporting people, adapting their support according to individual needs and preferences. For example, during a morning activity, we observed a member of staff supporting one person to independently participate in gardening activities. Shortly afterwards, another person expressed an interest in joining the activity. The staff member responded positively, encouraging the person’s involvement and providing appropriate support through verbal prompts and hand-over-hand assistance where needed.
These interactions demonstrated how staff promoted people's independence while ensuring they received the level of support necessary to participate in activities of their choosing and maintain control over their daily lives.
 

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.
During our assessment, one person told us they had experienced disrupted sleep as a result of another resident entering people's bedrooms during the night. The person explained this had become a recurring concern for them.
We shared this feedback with the management team, who responded promptly by meeting with the person to discuss their experiences and explore possible solutions. As a result of these discussions, the option of moving to an alternative room within the home was identified and arrangements were made to explore this further.
When we spoke with the person again later during the assessment, they told us they were satisfied with the response from the management team and had already begun considering alternative rooms. This demonstrated that staff listened to concerns, took them seriously and worked with people to identify solutions that met their immediate needs and preferences.
We reviewed audits in relation to call bells within the home. Evidence we saw showed that staff were responding to call bells, and this was reviewed by the management team within the home every month. One relative told us, “when I visit all staff respond if I call the bell, aways react quickly to [relative’s name] needs.”
 

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.
The Registered Manager had introduced a range of initiatives to recognise staff contributions and promote workforce wellbeing. This included an Employee of the Month scheme, which celebrated good performance and commitment through rewards such as gift vouchers and spa vouchers. These initiatives helped to acknowledge staff achievements and foster a positive workplace culture.
The service had also introduced regular quiz nights to encourage team building and strengthen working relationships amongst staff. In addition to supporting staff engagement, these sessions incorporated knowledge-based questions on key areas of practice and legislation, including the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), Best Interests decision-making, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and dysphagia management. This provided staff with opportunities to refresh and develop their knowledge in an informal and engaging way.
Records demonstrated that staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals. These meetings provided opportunities for staff to discuss their wellbeing, performance, learning and development needs, and any support required to undertake their role effectively. Supervision and appraisal processes were overseen by the Registered Manager and Clinical Lead, helping to ensure staff felt supported and enabled to deliver high-quality care.