Garsewednack Residential 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in respect of safe care and treatment and dignity. Some improvements were found at this assessment; however, the provider remained in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment.

The provider was no longer in breach of the legal regulation in relation to dignity.

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.

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

Staff knew people well and interacted warmly, using humour and gentle reassurance. One staff member said, “I lovemakingthe residentssmile, and that makes me happy, andIknowthemall verywell.” People and relatives told us staff were kind, and we saw caring interactions which helped people feel comfortable. A relative said, “Staff are friendly and it is homely.”

Staff supported people sensitively and maintained dignity during care. Bedrooms were personalised with photos and ornaments, helping people feel valued. Records of GP contact showed staff were attentive and ensured people received appropriate healthcare support.
Staff said the management team was now more approachable, which helped them provide consistent emotional support to people. It was clear some work had been done to improve the amount of clutter left around the home after our last visit. We saw there was less equipment and staff belongings in communal areas which showed more respect for people’s home.

Observations showed staff treating people with respect, and we saw an improvement in this area from the last time we assessed the service.

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.

The service did not always deliver consistently person‑centred care. Staff understood people’s histories and preferences, however care plans did not reflect people’s individual needs. While some care plans had improved since the last assessment, gaps remained, including missing or unclear information about risks, training needs and specific personalised approaches.

We observed 1 person sitting opposite a large television in their room and they told us, they could no longer see it, but had wanted to listen to music for a long time and had spent lots of time sitting in silence. We fed this back to the registered manager and provider and asked if the person could be supported to have entertainment meaningful and accessible to them arranged. People’s experience varied. Activities were not always delivered as planned, and some people were unaware of delays or changes.

Although staff knew people well and relationships were positive, inconsistency in records and planning meant people did not always receive reliably tailored support.

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.

The service did not always support people to maintain their independence or make choices about their daily lives. We saw examples where people were unable to reach their call bells, meaning they could not call for help when they needed to.

Some people were not consistently offered opportunities for meaningful activity, movement or outdoor access. Care records showed a lack of evidence people were routinely offered baths or showers in line with their preferences, and some assessments lacked up‑to‑date information to support autonomy.

Staff interactions were warm and encouraging, but gaps in planning and practice meant people did not always have the support needed to exercise choice and control in everyday routines. People were not supported with aspirations, and these were not recorded.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff were not always able to respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Fluid records showed large gaps in documented support, meaning staff could not be assured people were consistently offered drinks, especially in the evenings and overnight. We saw large gaps within fluid records for one person whose needs were anticipated by the service. This posed a risk of dehydration for people who were not able to support themselves and meant people’s needs were not always met.

One person could not reach their call bell so would have struggled to call for help, another person had their call bell taped up visibly onto the wall, so it was easy to identify and reach.

People fed back to us “The staff are excellent, some of them are my friends and we talk but they are sometimes busy” and “Sometimes I have to wait but that is ok, there are not very many of them [Staff] you see.”

Although staff were caring in their interactions, and improvements had been made since the last assessment, the service still lacked consistent systems to ensure timely and reliable care.

The provider had improved in how they promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

The service promoted a positive and supportive culture for staff. Staff told us, morale had improved and they felt more supported and listened to. They reported better communication with the management team and said supervisions were taking place. One staff member said, “I just feel a lothappier and more confidentand I ampleasedwith what themanagementare doing.”

Staff described the environment as more stable than at our last assessment, and observations showed staff working well together and responding kindly to people.