Callands 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 service under the new provider. 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.

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.

Overall, we received positive feedback about the way staff supported people. Relatives said, “I’ve seen very compassionate care, and she’s settled into the home” and “It’s a brilliant home; the level of care is really good. I see staff as genuinely caring; I can hear how they talk to people besides (relative).” Visiting professionals told us staff were welcoming and approachable, and they saw staff were caring in their approach.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity, for example, knocking on people’s doors. However, several people raised an issue about clothes going missing or getting mixed up in the laundry. One relative said they had found their relative in other people’s clothes, which could impact on their dignity. The management team were aware of these issues and were looking at solutions to manage this. Following our assessment, they confirmed they were trialing a new approach and would monitor its effectiveness.

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.

Care plans contained person-centred information including people’s backgrounds and histories. We saw people were being encouraged to complete “story books,” to help staff learn more about them and develop meaningful activities. People’s religious and cultural needs were considered and supported.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of people's individual needs and the adjustments required to support them. For example, staff were aware of the adaptations needed for a person with limited vision and adjusted their support accordingly. People's birthdays were recognised and celebrated, for example, we saw the chef had baked a birthday cake for one person and a party had been organised.

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

Staff respected people’s preferences and wishes, and these were recorded in their care plans. For example, one person had identified they preferred support from female staff. People told us they were able to make choices about their routines. One person said, “I have a shower every two days, that’s my choice. I wouldn’t want one every day.” However, another person told us they had asked to have a bath rather than a wash but had not yet been supported to do so. The provider was aware of this and was monitoring support to ensure people’s preferences were being met.

There was a dedicated wellbeing team in place, and feedback about their work was positive. Staff organised a range of activities, events and outings to help people to be engaged and involved. They were enthusiastic and worked to provide meaningful opportunities for people. For example, several people had participated in developing a garden room, which built on their skills and abilities.

Staff also supported people to work towards personal goals, which included maintaining their independence. Care plans included guidance on how staff should encourage and support people to do as much as possible for themselves. One relative told us staff were supporting their family member with the goal of returning to live at home in the community. They said, “We are all working towards a return to care at home, but should plans need to change, I wouldn’t look elsewhere for a long-term placement.” Staff were supporting people to achieve outcomes that were important to them.

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.

Our observations identified occasions where people’s needs were not responded to promptly. For example, one person became upset whilst waiting for staff to support them to the dining room. On another occasion, a person had called for assistance and told us they had been waiting some time. They explained their bed control was out of reach and required staff support to adjust their bedding. Staff provided support to these people when we highlighted this to them. Where people had dropped food on their clothing, staff had not always been prompt at responding.

However, overall feedback from people and their relatives was positive, with many describing staff as responsive. One person told us, “The staff answer the call bells okay, it’s better than it used to be.” A relative commented, “The staff are so amazing. He gives them abuse in a bad moment, but they respond so well, spend time with him and give him choices.”

Overall, the provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. However, some feedback indicated staff did not always feel supported and enabled to consistently deliver person-centred care.

Some staff were trained as Mental Health First Aiders, which enabled them to offer immediate support to people in distress or with mental health issues. The provider had added a welfare question to the digital signing in system, to help improve staff access to support if needed. The provider also offered staff access to independent support such as a confidential mental health support service, should this be needed.

There was an “employee of the month” scheme in place, to help recognise and reward staff for good practice. Some staff told us they had been supported with further training and career development.

However, some staff didn’t feel their wellbeing was always prioritised by the provider. Several felt morale was low due to the ongoing changes within the service, and some felt the changes had not yet made sufficient improvement.