Ringway Mews 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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to 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.

We observed some dedicated staff doing their best and treating people with kindness. We also received some positive reports from families. However, this was not consistent, and we observed some poor practice. Staff were often too busy, and people were not always treated with dignity and respect. Halifax unit was a poor environment and all the care we observed was task focused on this unit. Staff were struggling to cope with the demands placed upon them.

Staff told us, “I would say regular staff treat the residents with dignity and respect, but I can’t say the same about agency staff” and “It effects our residents as we are all rushing around when the time could be used better to promote the wellbeing of our residents by having a cuppa and a natter, joining in the activitiesor a walk around the garden, music therapy etc..”

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.

Care plans were not person centred. They did not detail people’s individual needs and preferences in nearly enough detail. They lacked guidance for staff in managing personal care, skin integrity, choking risks, management of falls and risk of aggression and agitation. The manager acknowledged improvement was needed to make them more person centred. They had spent considerable time trying to make sure the key information was accurate and up to date as the care plans were reported to have been in a poor state prior to them starting in their role.

Poor quality care plans were further compounded by high sickness rates and high use of agency staff. Regular staff who knew people well were more able to support people as individuals but despite a reduction in agency hours, the use of agency staff was still high, and this impacted on the quality of the care provided.

We received mixed feedback from relatives. Some of the feedback was positive about the regular staff but less so about the agency staff. Relatives told us, “They are really good and compassionate. They know my [relative]. They are friendly and interested in [relative] and listen to [relative’s] stories about my [relative]. The staff are excellent - I rate them” and “Some are really nice, a few are a bit off handed, it’s the agency staff but if they’re understaffed, they need them. Some of the agency staff aren’t qualified to look after people with dementia, they don’t know what they’re doing, whereas the regular staff do.”

People were supported to make choices when able to, such as choosing where to eat their meals and how to spend their day. People had access to friends and family, and they were supported to access the community. Access to activities needed to improve.

There was an acknowledgment from the provider there had been significant challenges around morale and continuity within the home which had impacted on activity provision. Inspectors observed a low level of activity during our onsite visits and observed people sat with no activities between mealtimes, where they spent time alone, as staff were often too busy to engage with them in a meaningful way. This was a particular problem for people with dementia as the environments were also not dementia friendly. People did have access to garden areas if they wished to go outside.

Feedback about activities from people and their relatives was mixed ranging from an acknowledgement that activities did take place to concerns about there being a lack of activity. People on Shackleton unit told us, "I've not really done any activities. Now and again, they will do exercises with us" and “The girls smile when they pass, they don't spend a lot of time with us, I don't know if they are allowed to. There isn’t much in the way of activities or things to do."

Activities coordinators were in place, and a range of activities were provided. Staff were in the process of completing individual activity assessments with people. There were planned group activities with one-to-one engagement being provided to people who were cared for in their rooms. The team also had access to an onsite minibus which provided opportunities for people in the local community. The manager told us they had also introduced flowers to welcome new residents and for resident’s birthdays.

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.

A high proportion of staff we spoke with told us there were not enough staff. Staff were not always able to anticipate people’s needs as they were often too busy. Inspectors observed this on Shackleton unit and Halifax unit.

Staff did not always respond to people’s needs quickly enough to avoid any preventable discomfort, concern or distress. Inspectors had to intervene during the inspection to ensure one person was able to go to the toilet. The television was on too loud and staff were unable to hear the person stating they would use the floor if someone did not assist them soon.

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.

Many of the staff we spoke with were unhappy and did not feel valued. They felt unsupported and this was impacting on their wellbeing. They told us, “No, I don’t feel valued by senior staff. I feel like it’s us and them. We get no help from them even when we are struggling. The seniors on the unit don’t even help at mealtimes and look for staff to do things that they could do themselves; we go home exhausted most days” and “Senior staff can be supportive at times, but workload pressures and staffing shortages can make staff feel stressed and undervalued. More support and recognition for carers would improve morale and staff wellbeing.”

The support provided to staff was not consistent. Staff reported being assaulted at work and one staff member told us they received no support after a resident passed away.

The manager provided examples of people who were provided with additional support and reasonable adjustments to support them in work. The manager was trying to improve the culture of the home and had introduced, ‘Wednesday wellbeing,’ where staff could come and chat with the manager in confidence. Staff wellbeing champions had also been introduced to try and support improvement.

The provider had some initiatives in place such as employee of the month and star of the month. These were chosen based on staff and family votes, along with external feedback which was given to the home.