Mulberry Court 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 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 were not always supported and 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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy. However, we observed some instances where people’s dignity was not supported.

A dignity policy was in place, and the provider completed a dignity audit. However, we observed some instances where people’s dignity was not supported. Two people were observed to have poorly cared for hair; staff helped another person to change their position, but the person was very annoyed by this, and this took place in front of several people in the lounge. We also noted that minutes from a team meeting described some people who used the service as ‘walkers’ which was not a dignified term to use.

A relative said, “Some of the staff are delightful. [Staff member] is adorable and so kind to [family member]. She’ll come and sit with [family member] in her break. One of the carers is like [their] best friend and will give [them] a cuddle. [Family member] had pneumonia and had to go to hospital - and a carer went with [them], and at end of shift another took her place.” Another relative said, “To be honest I can’t fault it. My [family member] has come on brilliant since [they] came into the care home. [Family member] is clean, shaved, haircut and looks brilliant. It’s lovely, any problems or niggles they always sort it. They really are looking after [them]. It’s such a laugh here. If you go in down in the dumps, you come out laughing. The staff are so caring.” A professional noted, “I've always found that the team of nurses, carers and management are genuinely very caring and compassionate for the patients there and on the whole do a very good service to them.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences.

A relative said, “It’s great that they let [family member] walk round leading the dog, as it’s what [they] used to do at home.” People’s individuality and preferences were respected. Staff knew people well. Support plans were detailed and reflected people’s personalities and unique needs and characteristics. Staff had completed person-centred care training and told us that support plans provided clear information of people’s individualised support needs.

We saw several bedrooms that had been personalised in line with people’s preferences. People were supported to practice their religion if they wished to. The resident of the day process allowed for regular review of a range of areas to ensure the service continued to meet people’s individual needs.

The provider promoted people’s independence and people had some choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. However, activities were limited at times and people were not always effectively supported to make choices at mealtimes.

A relative said, “There are no outings.” However, another relative said, “I’ve seen a number of activities … bingo, crafts, they’ve even done a casino.” Another relative said, “When I come now and then, there’s sometimes something going on.”

Activities were observed during our assessment and some people who used the service were involved. An activities timetable set out activities available across the forthcoming week. Records showed a person attending church and another person attending activities in the community. However, records showed limited activities had been recorded for people who spent most of their time in their bedroom and the provider was recruiting for additional activities staff to improve activities provision.

We observed lunchtime on the first day of assessment. Meals were not generally explained to people, menus did not include pictures to support understanding, visual aids were not used to support choices, and limited choices were offered to people.

Support plans were in place to provide guidance for staff on how to respond promptly and effectively to people in distress. However additional information was needed to provide specific information on actions to reassure people in distress.

Staff completed training on how to support people in distress. We observed a person who staff supported to change their position to minimise the risk of skin damage. The staff who directly supported the person did not interact effectively to reduce the person’s annoyance; however, the activities coordinator was helpful and attempted to reassure the person. Unfortunately, this was not effective, and the person was verbally abusive to staff following the event.

A relative said, “I’ve been with [family member] when [family member] needs the loo … I’ll ask them to come and take [family member] to the toilet and often they don’t, and [family member] will tell me that [they have] already done it [in continence product].” However, another relative said, “I’ve seen staff under pressure when people are distressed, and the staff are brilliant at helping them.” Another relative said, “Staff are on the ball all of the time.” We did not observe people waiting excessive times for support from staff during our inspection.

Guidance was in place for staff on how to monitor people and to respond to any signs of deterioration in their condition including diabetes or epilepsy. Records were completed to show this monitoring, and staff knew what to do.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they had good relationships with the registered manager and other manager and that staff worked well together.

The registered manager explained that rotas were planned to ensure staff wellbeing was supported. Supervisions and team meetings provided opportunities for staff to raise any wellbeing concerns.

Policies were in place to support staff wellbeing, and the registered manager had given overseas staff opportunity to share their reflections on how they were settling into the UK and their work. The most recent staff survey results were positive.