Archived: Sonia Lodge

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 inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring had significant shortfalls.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect and person centred care.

This service scored 25 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Whilst we did see times when staff were kind to people, had a laugh with people and provided comfort there were numerous examples of poor support leaving people in undignified positions. For example, one person’s drink was in an unclean cup. One person’s shirt had clearly not been ironed and was very crumpled. Another person was not supported to cut up their food when they needed to be. They struggled to eat, and it was not dignified.

Staff didn’t provide support which supported people to maintain their dignity. Staff told us if people declined support they would wait and offer again. However, we observed this was not always the case. One person’s fingernails were unclean. Staff said they had tried to cut them 3 days prior but there was no record of any attempts to encourage the person to have their nails cut or cleaned since.

One partner raised concerns following the inspection, they said “When I visit the care home there is an unsanitary odour to the building, the property appears unclean, the residents look unkempt.”

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

During lunch time staff attempted to put a clothing protector on everyone when it was not always needed. We observed staff did not ask people if they wanted the protector before putting them on people. One person was clearly offended and told staff, “I have never worn a bib in my life and I am not going to start now.” another person swatted staff away and said, “No”.

People’s possessions and identity were not respected. One relative told us, “I am not happy with the home. They dress [my relative] in other people’s clothes, it’s not nice for them, they are not nice. They look like they are wearing charity shop clothes.” Another told us, “[My relative] has been wearing someone else's slippers, even though they have their own. Clothes go missing and the rest aren't even [theirs]”.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Whilst staff understood people had the right to make choices there were times where people’s choices were impacted by a lack of person focused care. For example, on both days we visited the menu was not on display. There was a picture menu in the dining room, however, the menu was not correctly displayed. One day it showed fish and chips, which was not on the menu that day. Some people told us they did not know what they were having for lunch and complained to each other they would have liked to see the menu whilst they were at the dinner table. One person told us, “, I don’t know what I have got for lunch, but I have no worries about that, I

like the food.” Another person made it clear to staff they wanted a different meal when they were served lunch. Staff told us the person had chosen their meal in the morning. However, when the meal was served, they told staff they wanted a different choice. This request wasn’t responded to. Staff didn’t offer the person any alternative choices nor explain to them why not, if this wasn’t possible. The person continued to complain to the other people sat at the table as the staff member walked away.

Care plans did not always provide staff with clear guidance on promoting independence leaving staff to work things out for themselves. One staff told us, “I will see what they can do for themselves, for example, I will put toothpaste on a toothbrush and hand it to them, if they are finding it difficult then I can step in and toothbrush.”

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.

When people were upset staff responded to them. One person was repeatedly calling out. Staff responded to this each time in a kind and compassionate way. However, there were other times where staff did not recognise people’s need for support. For example, one person had urine on their clothes which smelt strongly. Staff did not identify the person needed support until the inspector informed them.

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.

Staff were positive about the support they received in particular from the deputy manager. One staff said, “Management are all supportive especially the deputy he is very approachable, they will help me.” Staff had breaks when they were on shift.

However, the provider has also not invested in developing staff skills to enable them to provide positive person-centred care.