Regency Hall

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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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. We observed warm, respectful and patient interactions between staff and people during our inspection. People confirmed they were treated with kindness. One person told us, “[Staff] are helpful and caring.” Feedback from relatives included, “I do believe they treat people with dignity and respect. My relative really likes the staff.” And “My relative is made to feel like they are the only person cared for, a special one.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Whilst staff could tell us about people’s protected characteristics and support required to meet their diverse needs, such as religious considerations, this was not always fully reflected in people’s care records. However, we observed the support provided by staff on site to meet these needs.

Overall, people told us staff knew them and treated them as individuals, ensuring their preferences were respected. Feedback included “Staff have always responded with a great deal of understanding and patience and are always helpful and friendly with [person].” And “[Person] will go to the reception tell them what they need.” And “[Person] always looks prim and proper.”

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 didn’t always have enough to do. During our inspection we saw a lack of stimulation for people, and some spent the whole day in the same place. One person had a television in their room, but no remote to change the channel. People told us, “There's very little to do here. Can sit for hours just staring at the walls. I can do my knitting, but I don't want to be knitting all day.” And “There aren’t really things to do here, it’s mainly the telly. I don't really see much going on here.” And “The activities person doesn’t come to my room.” A relative said, “There needs to be more interaction with the residents…The routine is cold... The lounge telly is on and no one is taking any notice.”

Some feedback received suggested people did not always have choice and control over their day-to-day care when they relied on staff to meet their needs. One person told us, “I like a bath, and it seems harder to get the staff for that to work the hoist and things.” Another said, “I think things are okay here but sometimes I'm not sure when I should do things. They don't tell me what is going to happen, so it adds to my confusion.”

However, people were supported to maintain their independence as much as possible. This included managing their own health needs where appropriate. Relative feedback included, “They encourage [person] to do things, if [person] can’t they step in.” And, “Staff encourage [person] to do things for themselves. They do try.”

People were supported to maintain relationships with those important to them. There were no restrictions on visitors to the home.

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.

During our inspection we found not everybody had easy access to their call bell. This meant they would have not been easily able to call for support if needed. One person told us, “I have never used the call bell and I'm not sure if they showed me how to use it.” The registered manager told us some people would shout, rather than use a call bell, if they needed support. However, during our inspection, staff were not always easy to locate and therefore we were not assured would be responsive to people’s immediate requests for support. No systems were in place to monitor call bell response times. At the end of our site visit, people’s call bells were within reach.

However, staff were able to recognise and respond appropriately to people’s needs. For example, where people could not verbally communicate, staff could explain how a person would show they were in pain or distressed. Further improvements were required to ensure care records reflected the same information.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to carry out their roles. Reward schemes were in place to encourage and celebrate good practice. Staff feedback confirmed they felt supported at work.