Lakeside Watermead 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 assessment for this newly registered service, following a change in provider. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people felt well-supported, cared for and treated with dignity and respect.

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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

During the inspection we observed a mix of positive and negative interactions between people and staff. A staff member was observed to be responsive to people’s needs despite working under pressure. They provided reassurance to people in a kind, caring and gentle way. However, other staff were task orientated with little engagement with people whilst supporting them with their meals. This was fed back to the provider to address.

People and their relatives described staff as, “Kind, caring but care was rushed.” They told us staff worked across the 2 floors which meant they were not always supported by a consistent staff team. A relative told us of occasions where a staff member came across as ‘rude and abrupt’ to their family member. This was fed back to the provider to monitor the staff member and address.

A professional commented “The staff at Lakeside are kind, compassionate and care deeply about the residents there. There is a strong sense of community which includes both the residents and the staff, and the staff’s warmth makes the general atmosphere positive and inclusive.”

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.

People had access to in house activities. Some people took an active part in activities, whilst others did not find the activities on offer of interest to them. The provider had identified that the range of activities available to people was not sufficient. They had recently appointed a second activity staff member to enable them to offer activities 7 days a week and to people in their bedrooms.

People’s cultural, social and religious needs were identified. Their care plans outlined people’s sexuality preferences and relationship status, which promoted personal dignity, respect, and autonomy.

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.

People were supported to make choices in relation to food and drinks. However, people told us the staffing levels impacted on their preferences for getting up, going to bed or when they could have a shower.

A relative told us their family member has to wait in the morning to be attended to. They commented, “[Family member’s name] often doesn’t know what time they will be got up. At home they liked to get up and showered early, at 7, but now they (carers) don’t have time to shower him”. They went on to say that on an occasion when they asked for a shower they were told ‘you will have to book a shower’. These practices do not promote people’s choices and control over their care.

There were no restrictions on visiting to the service, with family members and friends’ involvement in people’s care encouraged.

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.

People had call bells in their bedrooms and sensor mats were provided for people who required them. During the inspection we noted very few call bells in use. A person told us they felt safe because they know if they use the call bell, or shout someone will always come to help.

We observed for some people the call bell was not always accessible to them, in that it was out of their reach when on the bed or if they were sat out on a chair, away from the wall mounted call bell. The provider agreed to assess the risks to people around the location of the call bells to enable the service to be responsive to people’s immediate needs.

The provider had systems in place to promote the wellbeing of staff to enable them to deliver person centred care.

Systems were in place such as team meetings and supervisions to enable staff to provide feedback on barriers that impacted their well-being and prevented them from consistently delivering person- centred care. Whilst some staff felt supported, others felt staffing levels impacted on their well- being and the care provided. This resulted in them working under extreme stress and pressure and they were not always able to have a break. This was fed back to the provider who took immediate actions to increase staffing levels to promote staff’s wellbeing.