- Care home
Archived: Bethany Homestead
We served a warning notice on Bethany Homestead on 30 January 2025 for failing to meet the regulations related to good governance.
Assessment report published 2 May 2025
Contents
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
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 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.
Kindness, compassion and dignity
The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.
Although most staff treated people with kindness and compassion, we observed occasions where staff did not acknowledge people’s needs or communicate with them in a respectful way. One person told us they preferred receiving care from some staff more than others, they said, “You have to take the rough with the smooth.” We brought this to the attention of the manager who was unable to demonstrate they had carried out supervision or spot checks on staff communication but did address these concerns at the time.
Treating people as individuals
The provider treated people as individuals and supported them to follow their religions and customs. The service is run by a Christian charity; people and their relatives told us this was why they had chosen Bethany Homestead and were happy they could attend the Chapel. Where people followed other faiths, for example people who were Catholic, were supported by their local priest. Where people did not want to take part in religious activities, this was recorded in their care plans.
Independence, choice and control
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.
Although the staff we spoke with gave good examples of supporting people to have better choice and control over their day-to-day care and support, some staff also told us that they were encouraged to wake people up in the early morning to get them ready for the day. There was no managerial oversight of staff adhering to people’s choices and preferences. This meant some people experienced disturbed sleep and did not have a say in how they spent their time.
Relatives we spoke with told us they were free to visit at any time and were always made to feel welcome. Most people participated and enjoyed the range of activities; however, relatives told us they had expected more external activities as advised before admission. The activities staff did not have enough resources to provide many external activities, however, more staff had been recently employed.
Responding to people’s immediate needs
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.
People’s needs and wishes were not consistently met as staff did not always respond to call bells, leaving people in distress. We brought this to the manager’s attention; they reviewed the deployment of staff to areas where people required assistance. The manager had not identified there was an issue with staff not responding to the call bells and was unable to provide evidence of oversight of call bell response times. People told us staff were responsive to their needs when they did answer the call bells, but people said at times they had to wait when staff were busy.
Workforce wellbeing and enablement
The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.
Some of the staff we spoke with told us when they had raised concerns they had been treated differently and felt less inclined to raise concerns in the future, however some staff did feel supported in their role.
The manager had provided posters in the staff room displaying a range of services available to staff to promote good health.