Cheverells 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 remained 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.

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 living at the service gave us positive feedback about staff caring for them. One person described the registered manager to us as “approachable” and another person gave us the ‘thumbs up’ sign when we asked them about staff. One relative told us, “The staff are lovely and caring. I appreciate all the hard work they do.”

During our visit, we observed staff interactions with people. People were relaxed with staff members and had built positive relationships. Staff spoke in a gentle and soft tone of voice with people and gave them time to make decisions.

At one point during our visit, it was quite busy in the home. One staff member was asking a person what they would like for lunch and was interrupted by another person. The staff member imparted the needed information to the person, then returned to the other person, taking their hand and apologising for leaving them.

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.

Staff treated people as individuals, and plans were made in response to people’s choices rather than the needs of the service. For example, during our visit 1 person wished to visit their relative with staff support. Another person changed their mind about going out and decided they wished to stay at home and do some reading. Staff told us 1 person had a garden shed to enable [name] to carry on with woodwork hobbies. The staff member added, “It’s about what they like to do really." A relative told us “[Name] is a devout Roman Catholic and the home arranged for [name] to have Holy Communion, and I really appreciate this. It’s scheduled in monthly and there is someone from the local church who visits [name], so bringing the communion to [name] is much appreciated.”

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

Staff encouraged people to make decisions about their day-to-day care. For example, 1 staff member told us how they encouraged a person to select their choice of clothing for the day. Another staff member explained if another person pointed to their hair, this meant they would like to have their styled. We observed 1 staff member speak to people individually to ask what vegetables they would like with roast chicken lunch the next day. Relatives were complimentary about the staff team and felt they were proactive in promoting people’s independence in making decisions about their life.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff

did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort,

concern or distress.

There were times when staff had not dealt with people’s needs in a timely way to ensure they remained comfortable. For example, on inspection, we observed 1 call bell ringing intermittently for 30 minutes. The deputy manager did address this with the staff on duty. One relative told us “[Name] was not keen on some of the night staff, and they did not always answer [name] call bell.” Additionally, one person told us, “Not usually a long wait, only if the staff are very busy. Sometimes they [staff] will come and say, ‘we will be with you in a couple of minutes’.”

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.

There were some inconsistencies in mechanisms to support staff. Staff meetings had not been held on a regular basis, and staff told us they didn’t feel listened to by the deputy manager when they had raised concerns there were not sufficient staff on duty. For example, 1 staff member told us, “I’ve spoken to [name] about not enough staff on shifts at weekends, but nothing changes”.

However, staff were allocated appropriate breaks and were provided with a staff room they could use.