Thomas Edward Mitton House

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people were not always treated with compassion, dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff spoke about their personal feelings about aspects of their job or health loudly where people could hear them. Staff spoke about people’s medical support needs and appointments in communal areas where others could hear. They did not always speak with people when supporting them with their meals. One person said, ‘‘[Staff] always seem to be rushing around and don’t always seem to want to hear what we have to say.’’

However, we also saw staff speak with people with kindness and compassion at some times of the day. We observed people to be happy and relaxed when being supported for the most part. One person said, ‘‘[Staff] are kind and caring and look after me well.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘I would say staff are 100% caring and they have [family members] best interests at heart.’’

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.

Staff spent time with people, however, did not engage with them in conversation about their individual preferences, likes and dislikes. Care plans did not contain information about these, limiting the opportunity for staff to treat people as individuals. People’s individual preferences about their care, support and rehabilitation were not meaningfully discussed with them or used to inform their care plans and the way staff supported them. One relative said, ‘‘[Family member] has hobbies and interests and talks about them all the time but I do not think staff engage with them about these.’’

However, some staff knew people well as individuals. For example, we observed some staff to effectively support people to feel better if they became upset, in line with the person’s individual preferences. A person told us, ‘‘[Staff] make a point of getting to know you and what you like.’’

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 were not consistently being supported to be independent in relation to their rehabilitation. Care plans did not make it clear what people could do independently in areas such as walking or eating and drinking. We observed staff to not encourage independence in these areas. We were not shown evidence of how people or relatives were engaged with about wider choices about their support. One relative said, ‘‘[Staff] do not encourage [family member] to do things themselves. I think it takes too much time and it’s easier to do it for them.’’

However, staff did offer people choices in their day-to-day support such as what to eat and drink or where to sit. We saw several examples where people’s independence had improved whilst they stayed at the service. A person said, ‘‘I feel a bit more independent now and staff help me when I need it.’’

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.

It was more difficult for staff to respond to people’s immediate care needs as people sometimes went for extended periods of time without meaningful engagement. People and relatives told us they sometimes had to wait longer for support. One person said, ‘‘I have to wait sometimes but it depends on the time of day and what the staff are up to.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘[Family member] will often have to wait to use the toilet. I know staff are busy but there should be enough of them about to help them with this.’’

However, staff responded to call bells in a timely fashion. Staff responded quickly to people’s request for support, for example for food and drink. One person said, ‘‘I never have to wait long.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘I always manage to get hold of a staff member when I visit.’’

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to enjoy their job roles. Staff told us the recent changes to the senior management team had been unsettling, however felt things were now improving. Staff enjoyed their job roles and told us they felt well supported by the service manager. The provider had measures in place to support staff wellbeing, such as access to discussions with management if they needed support.