Saint Jude 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 the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we did not rate this key question. At this assessment the rating is requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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 interacted with people in a kind and compassionate manner and knew them well. Staff said they understood how to protect a person’s dignity, and we observed examples of this. Family members spoke positively about the care their relative received. A family member told us staff accommodated their relatives every need. People shared similar experiences with one person telling us, “The girls [staff] help me order things online and go to the shops if I want, my confidence has been rebuilt here” and another told us, “The girls are so lovely and helpful.”

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. For example, staff and management understood and respected people’s religious and cultural needs. Special occasions and birthdays were celebrated within the home. People’s food preferences were considered and mealtimes adapted where required. One person told us they have high cholesterol and, “They (staff) do try to accommodate this and my GP shared recipes with them to give them ideas.” A family member explained their loved one’s vegetarian diet was catered for.

We observed ministers from the local church spending time in the home as part of a regular service they provided. They were seen chatting with people and offering communion for those that wished to take part. One person told us they enjoyed these visits.
 

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.
For example, there was mixed feedback regarding activities and things to do in the home. The provider showed us evidence of activities planned throughout the year, such as, animal visits, BBQ’s, Christmas celebrations, singers, music activities and sing-alongs. However, one person told us they did not enjoy any of the activities on offer and spent much of their time watching television. And during our visits, there was not much on offer in the way of activities. A family member commented, “Activities are needed here.” Some people told us staff respected their privacy, dignity and independence. One person said, “I can choose how I spend my day.” Family members told us they could visit their relative at any time; and people confirmed this with one person saying, “My family visit and bring me stuff I like.”
 

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. For example, while call bell systems were in place to support people to request help, response times were not always satisfactory in practice. Two people told us they sometimes waited longer than they expected for staff to respond, particularly at night when staff were busy supporting others. One person said, “I feel staff should come quicker.” We requested call bell audits from the provider, but these were not supplied, indicating a lack of oversight and limited assurance people’s concerns were being monitored and addressed.

However, regular checks were completed to ensure bells were working and within reach when people were in bed.
 

The provider has ongoing recruitment issues, which meant staff wellbeing could not always be prioritised. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver care at their best. For example,
staff told us they were currently working a lot of overtime due to challenges with recruitment, and this was beginning to affect their wellbeing. Staff described frustration as a result of these pressures. Staff meetings did take place, but these were infrequent, and concerns raised were not always addressed in a timely manner, limiting assurances staff were being listened to.
However, some staff told us they received regular supervision, felt able to approach management and felt supported in their role. The registered manager told us they intended to introduce a staff handbook bringing together all relevant staff policies and provide guidance on employment contracts. They assured us recruitment was a current priority.