Royal 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 service 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 remained good. This meant people felt well-supported by staff, cared for and treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People felt staff treated them with respect. One person said, “Yes, they knock before they come into my room. They treat me with respect.” Staff spoke about how they treat people with kindness, compassion and dignity. One staff member said, “I always make sure doors are closed and that people are fully dressed when transferring. I always knock on people's doors."

During our first day on inspection we knocked on a person’s door, announced ourselves and asked if we were ok to enter and staff told us we were, we entered to find a person in bed wearing a pad and no other clothes or cover to the bottom half, this was not promoting this person dignity. All other interactions we witnessed were kind, caring and promoted dignity. Professionals told us people were treated with kindness and compassion. One professional said, “The staff seemed to be treating the people with kindness and compassion”

The service 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.

People felt staff communicated with them effectively during their day-to-day care and support. Staff told us they knew people well. During our walk around, we observed that people’s bedrooms were personalised with their chosen items such as photos and belongings important to them.

Professionals feedback was mostly positive with comments such as “The residents were found to be treated as individuals.” And “Yes, (there) appear(s) to provide a personalised approach.” However, one professional said “(there was) Limited information shared in regard to people’s life history etc”

The service did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always have choice and control over their own care in areas such as activities.

People’s feedback about making choices was mixed, one family member said, “(Person using the service) has a habit of getting up in the night thinking it is daytime, they have to explain to him he needs to go back to bed.” Whilst one person told us, “Some of the staff tell you when you have to go to bed, one in particular, says I have to go to bed at 9.30pm and sometimes I wanted to watch the end of the [TV show].”

Feedback on activities was mixed, one relative said, “I don’t know what activities (person using the service) does and if he goes out. He does sit out at the front.” One person told us, “They do games, bingo, we do exercises, we don’t go out except with my [loved one]. The home employed an activities coordinator, and we did see some photos of some activities people were involved in. However, the service had an activity plan in place on the noticeboard that showed some of the activities that were being offered throughout the week, but these did not align with what we witnessed on site. Some activity records indicated that at times no activities were being offered.

Staff spoke about how they tried to encourage people’s independence. One staff member said, “(We) Promote independence.” And the registered manager told us, "We encourage them (people) to be as independent as possible." Light switches were being introduced that had a soft glow which helped people locate the light switch in the dark or at night. These were being introduced for people that were independently mobile and would benefit from this type of technology.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People felt staff listened to them. One person said, “Yes, they do what you ask them to do.” The manager told us how they could communicate with people who may find it difficult to communicate verbally. We observe staff responding to people’s needs by supporting them with things such as mobilising and providing one-to-one support where required.

The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff appropriately.

Staff feedback about wellbeing was mixed. Whilst staff spoke of being supported if they had a family emergency, multiple other staff spoke about inequalities. One staff member said, “There is inequity in people having breaks, the manager doesn't deal with it when it comes to friends.” Staff were able to raise concerns in various ways should they have any and through various channels, but staff felt these were not always acted upon promptly. Various policies were in place to support staff wellbeing. The service had achieved and investors in people award. Staff health was considered as part of the recruitment process though completion of health questionnaires, this helped the service accommodate any specific needs staff may have.