Tower Bridge Care Centre

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 inspection for this 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.

People were not always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We received mixed feedback in relation to people being treated with kindness in the support they received day to day. We received comments like, “[Staff] are not overly keen on talking when they are dealing with you. They want to do the job and be done,” and “Some [staff] for some reason are not very friendly to us as a family. We had to go downstairs and complain to the manager several times.” Although staff had received the relevant training, people’s experience told us staff did not always support them with kindness and compassion. This put people at the risk of harm and avoidable harm in relation to their wellbeing while living at the service. While on site, we observed positive interactions between staff and residents. We also received positive comments such as, “The staff arenice. They are kind and respectful. I like chatting and if I’m on my own for too long it brings me down. When someone comes in and chats it lifts me up. I do have a friend here so that helps,” and “[Staff] treat [relative] very well.”

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.

While not all care plans detailed people’s protected characteristics, we received positive feedback from people in relation to how these were respected in the service. The service supported people to meet their religious needs, a priest visited the service on a weekly basis. People were supported to attend services of their choice when required. People’s communication needs were noted in their care plans, and communication passports were personalised, and robust and individualised. People were able to personalise their rooms as required by way of lay out and decoration. The service had a birthday board which celebrated people’s birthday. We saw photo’s where the service was celebrating people’s birthdays with them. Some people were able to socialise in the community. One person told us. “What I really like is going out to the café, there is a pool there too. We do have different get togethers.”

People did not always have choice and control over their wellbeing. People were supported to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them. One person told us they were put to bed early in the evening, although this was not their choice. This would lead to them waking up very early and having to wait a long time before staff would support them with early morning activities as personal care and breakfast. We discussed this concern with the management team. The management team told us this would be investigated. They understood the importance of people having control over their lives as much as possible, including how they spent their days, and when they wanted to go to bed.

Relatives did not have to give notice to the service when they wanted to visit. Relatives and friends were able to visit people at a time that suited them throughout the day. Whie some people told us they had choice and control over their care, treatment and activities they took part in some people found the control over their day was restricted.

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. We received comments such as, “My [relative] is a bit restless. [Relative’s] hearing aid was lost 3 weeks ago. I keep mentioning it, it is not the first time it has been lost.” This was mentioned to the management team, and the registered manager took immediate action to ensure an appointment for a replacement was completed. Some people’s social needs were not being met within the home. One person told us, “I’d like to go outside more. I don’t think we can go to the garden; you can’t be on your own outside. I miss the fresh air.” However, we also received positive feedback from people. One person told us, “The staff are nice. The door is always left open at night, a lady sites at the desk in the corridor so you know someone is there for you,” and “[Relative] is looked after very well here, [relative] always looks clean and tidy. The staff are so very kind here.”

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff told us they feel valued in the way they were treated. Staff told us the teamwork was good, and their training was up to date. A member of staff who said [they] had struggled with the new computer system told us they are currently coping well because of the support received from colleagues and the management team. Staff received appraisals on a regular basis. There were daily staff meetings were staff had the opportunity to give feedback bout concerns.