St Nectans Residential 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

The home had a welcoming, and friendly atmosphere. The staff knew people well and were kind and respectful with people. Staff were reassuring to people and promoted people’s independence and offered choice.

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.

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.

We received many examples of positive feedback about staff kindness. One family member told us, “Kindness, dignity and respect is evident, I have noticed this in how they support residents.”

Staff told us, “It is a caring environment. The team is good, I enjoy working here.”

Health professionals told us that staff know people well and are caring and kind. One said, “When I visit, they [staff] are professional and polite.” Another comment made was, “They are quick to ring if they suspect a resident is unwell.”

We observed staff showing concern and compassion for people they were supporting. We saw staff interacting with people in a respectful and cheerful manner, they knew which residents enjoyed banter and saw people enjoying it. Staff were thoughtful and kind when helping people get seated for lunch, and ensured they sat where they wished to.

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.

Some people were unable to tell us their experience. However, one person told us, “They look after me very well, I don’t like to go downstairs but they respect that.” One relative said, “They are lovely they are patient, and they sit with my Mum and other residents and talk to them, getting to know them and their needs.”

Staff told us how they get as much information as they can from families to get to know them well. One staff member said, “We get to know people and that helps us support them in the right way.”

Care plans were specific to each person and there were policies that put people at the centre of their care and treated them as individuals. People’s electronic care plans were up to date, and contained detailed information about their strengths, weaknesses likes and dislikes, and how they preferred staff to meet their care needs and wishes.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing.

People were supported to maintain relationships with people who were important to them. Visitors were welcomed and relatives confirmed they were able to visit their loved ones at any time.Care plans reflected people's choices and preferences. A more detailed and consistent approach was required regarding how staff were to offer informed choices to people, without just giving them what they know they like. Care plans recorded how peoples’ preferences for care, support and meals/drinks but lacked information of how staff can support people to make informed choices. For example, using pictorial, or written aids. We saw one person struggle to make a supper choice, because they were unsure what the choices were, the use of a pictorial menu would have made the choice easier and prevent their embarrassment of indecision.

Care records reflected people’s communication needs so staff understood how to provide people with information and how people communicated their choices and preferences. People were encouraged and supported to do as much as they could for themselves, to maintain and develop their independent living skills. People’s care plans reflected this approach, what they were willing and capable of doing for themselves safely, and what they needed staff support with.

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.

Not everyone was able to tell us their views. However, one person said, "lovely staff, reliable, they come when I ring my bell.” One relative told us, “They know people well, they alert us of any changes, and ring us immediately if something is not right.”

Staff said, “We use sensor lights to prevent falls. It alerts us immediately they are up and moving, so we go immediately to them.” Staff knew people well and this allowed them to respond quickly to signs of distress or when they needed medical help.

There were signs used to help people to find their way around the home. For example, if they needed to find a toilet. However, the provider confirmed that they would be introducing more dementia friendly signage to help people remain independent and orientated. During the visits we saw that staff responded to people’s immediate needs in a timely way.

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

Staff felt well supported by the management team. One staff told us, “We get opportunities to talk in staff meetings, supervisions and team meetings.” One staff said, “We are like a family here, staff support one another.” The deputy manager told us how they operated an open-door policy for all.

The manager routinely used individual supervision and group team meetings to engage and support staff through any areas of concern or identify any training needs. Employee satisfaction surveys were sent out to all staff on a regular basis and the provider would collate all surveys and take action if required. Action had been taken in response to staff views.

During the assessment process there has been negative feedback regarding the support for staff, staff well-being and management level unprofessional behaviours. The provider has provided an action plan for supporting staff to share their concerns and speak up in a safe place. This will include effective conflict resolution and transparent communication.