Priesty Fields 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 requires improvement. 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.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person-centred care. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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.

Overall, we received positive feedback from people and relatives about the way staff treated them. Comments included, “The staff are genuinely friendly, and they are my new friends and family” and “I can’t grumble, it’s not home, but they look after me. They are very kind to me, each and every one of them.” Some people told us certain staff approaches were better than others.

We observed staff treating people with kindness, respecting their privacy and dignity. One person told us, “They always knock on the door or shout before they come in.” We saw staff demonstrating compassion, taking a respectful approach to a person whose funeral commenced at the service. In some examples, staff had built effective relationships with people and understood their needs well.

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 were reviewing and updating people’s care pans. They contained some person-centred information, including individual information such as what they liked to talk about. Feedback indicated staff took account of people’s wishes and preferences. Comments included, “They help me with everything. I don’t really like baths or showers, so they give me a good wash” and “They know what I’m like and what I need.” A relative told us, “She has excellent personal care, and she is always clean and well-dressed when I visit, and her hair is always nicely done.” For one person, staff had arranged for a visit from a favourite singer and from players of the local football team, in line with their wishes.

We received varying feedback about the food provision, however, since our previous assessment, this appeared to be an improving picture. The provider had set up a food committee, chaired by a person using the service and a new 4-week menu was being implemented. They were gathering feedback from people. One person said, “The food is a bit better now.” The chef had improved the presentation for pureed meals. A menu was available for people, but not readily accessible and staff we spoke with were unaware of pictorial menus being available, to support alternative communication.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. However, managers were now focusing on improvements to enable staff to support people with their goals and to promote independence.

Overall, staff supported people to make choices about their care. People told us staff respected their wishes. People said, “There are no restrictions for me. I get up about 9 and go to bed about 10.30” and “I like to go to bed at 7.15. they help me and turn on the TV.” Managers shared examples where staff supported people to spend more time out of bed and worked towards longer-term goals, such as for one person to go shopping in the community. This needed to be embedded and sustained by manages and staff.

The provider needed to make further improvements to support people with activities and ensure their well-being was promoted. People’s feedback about this varied, they told us, “There have been trips to garden centres and the Wedgewood factory. On a Friday they have rickshaw rides. I would like a bit more going on in the home though”; “I am fed up there is nothing to do. I want to do something” and “I like to stay in my room because there’s not a lot going on but sometimes, they take me for a walk around the building.” There were minimal group activities taking place during our visits. However, people were positive about the current activity worker and a further 2 new staff were in the pipeline. Some of the facilities within the home, such as the pub and cinema room were underused and they had plans to address this. Recently staff had supported a group of people to take part in the local Pride event in the town.

People were supported to maintain contact with their loved ones. We observed various visitors throughout of site visits. One person had been supported to speak with their relative via Facetime, with support from the activity co-ordinator.

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.

We received varying feedback from people about the responsiveness of staff. Some people were positive and told us staff were available when they needed them, and they understood their needs. However, others said at times they had to wait for staff to respond. People commented, “I use the bell if I need a change. It can be mixed. In the past it was awful. It has improved a bit lately in the last few months” and “On occasions I have had to go (to the toilet) by myself because I was desperate, and no one has come after me using the bell.”

Overall, we observed staffing responding to people well and responding when people’s sensors alerted them. However, we observed one person whose immediate needs did not always appear to be being well met. Whilst staff were looking at various ways to support this person, the manager agreed to arrange a further review with health and social care professionals.

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

Feedback indicated staff morale had improved since our previous assessment and staff felt better supported by current managers. This progress needed to be embedded and sustained, as there were further planned changes to the management team.

The provider had various reward schemes and systems to recognise staff and support them. This included employee of the month, where people and staff could nominate individuals for a reward. The provider’s Human Resources team had facilitated a recent welfare day to recognise staff performance. The provider offered a wellbeing programme to support staff with their mental and physical health, should they require this.