Archived: Gloucester 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 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.

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. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People we spoke with told us, “I am very fond of them. You do get some that are better. We do have lots of laughs. The staff make life worthwhile. They are like family. We always get on better with some than others.” And “They are very good, very nice, very kind.”

People told us that staff treated them with dignity, specifically when providing personal care, “They always close the door when they do anything, and I hear people knock before they come in.” And “I don't think that I've had any problem. They always knock before they come into my room and always speak very nicely.”

However, we observed some practices which were not always kind or dignified such as a member of staff was assisting a person but was standing over them rather than sitting. Also, staff supporting a person during their meal spoke over the person with another member of staff who had entered the dining room discussing a trip out.

The provider did 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.

People told us that they were treated as individuals. The staff providing the care and support to people knew them very well. We were told, “They know me better than I know them. They do have a good knowledge of you. They are very insightful.”

Although the provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were not always empowered to have as much control over their lives as possible. For example, review meetings that involved staff and people were not held. People were not involved in decisions about their care and support which meant they were at risk of not receiving care that met their individual needs or risks..

People told us they were given choices where appropriate regarding, what they would like to eat, what to wear and whether to have male or female staff support them. “They always have a door shut when I'm washing. There were 2 (males) working on this block and they asked if I minded having a (male) help me and I said no I don't want that, and they listened to me and got a (female) from the other block to come and help me.”

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.

The service used a nurse call bell system where people could push a button to alert staff, that they required support and assistance.

People told us that when they pressed their button, “Only occasionally do you have to wait. Not very often. If there are 2 on and 1 is on their break and someone else wants something. They can only do 1 job at a time.” And “Not bad. You’ve got the general bell where one person comes and then the emergency one where everyone comes.”

However, the provider completed an audit of call bell data in April 2024. This stated there were ‘breaches’ of the target response time and this indicated areas for improvement and immediate action should be taken to address delays and enhance the overall response efficiency to maintain high standards of care. There were no further checks completed to ensure that the recommended action had been taken and that response times to people asking for help had been improved.

The provider did not promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us morale amongst the care and support staff was very low. They explained they only got through the day because of each other. They said they did not always feel supported by the provider or registered manager. They told us, “If it wasn’t for my colleagues I wouldn’t be (working) here”.

Staff had not had the opportunity to raise these concerns as they had not received individual supervision or appraisals. Meetings were arranged or cancelled at the last minute and the only way they had been updated was when information was passed down, from nurses to seniors to care staff.

Staff were positive about the newly recruited nurses to the team, telling us things had improved between nursing and care staff. We were told, “The divide or the ‘it’s not my job’ has gone.Nurses help us all the time.” Staff were clear this was due to the nurses who had been recruited, not due to provider support or registered manager oversight.