Archived: Iceni House

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 remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (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. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. We observed some people who appeared unkempt with dirty nails, were unshaven and wearing some dirty clothing. We raised this with the provider and on our second visit, we observed an improvement in people’s appearances.

During the assessment we found that some interactions were task orientated lacking meaningful communication. However, we also observed interactions where members of staff were kind and caring, and interactions with people were respectful.

One staff member told us “Dignity and respect is important, giving choices and talking about how they like to be treated, how they like to eat and their wishes.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We found that care plans for people did not include detailed information on their backgrounds and their holistic needs and that daily records were recorded in a task orientated way. However, staff felt that they had a good knowledge and understanding of people’s needs from engaging with them, with one staff member saying, “All the information I have is from getting to know the residents personally.”

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives, one person who uses the service told us “I tell them I like going outside but I don’t see anyone.” While one relative said, “they know his likes and dislikes.”

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.

There was an activity plan in place showing a variety of different activities, however, there was limited evidence of how these were being implemented. None of the activities planned included taking people out into the community. We observed a group activity where there was little engagement from people. Staff told us that more activities were needed with one saying, “We do not have enough activities going on and that’s hard on the residents and the staff.”

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives, with one relative saying, “They do give him a choice of clothes to wear and they have two choices of food.” While one person told us “I never get asked what I would like to see on the menu. Would like to put ideas forward. If that was an option, then I would.”We observed people being offered a choice of meals at lunch time.

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.

On the first day of our assessment, we found that call bells were not always answered and responded to in a timely manner, with one call bell not being answered for over 10 minutes. One relative told us, “I rang the bell as [they] needed the toilet, and no one came so I went to go look for a staff member. Nobody came, 20 minutes later a staff member came and told her to do it in her pad. How undignified.” Staff felt that they had a good understanding of how people were feeling with one telling us, “I can tell by their faces how they are feeling.”

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 had been inconsistent management and leadership leading up to the assessment which had negatively influenced staff morale. Some staff told us that they felt valued while others said they did not feel valued with one saying, “I do not feel valued, I do a good job and work hard, but no one tells me.” although another staff member told us ““I feel valued in areas now. Previously I did not feel listened to but it is getting better.” There was a lack of staff supervisions and appraisals being completed with one staff member telling us “No one tells me personally if I am doing a good job, never had a one to one, it’s the way it’s always been.” Staff spoke positively about their roles and working in the care home.