Clarence House 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 did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.
 

This service scored 50 (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 always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Observations of care within the home found that some staff delivered care that was kind and compassionate, however this was not consistently the case throughout the home. Observations carried out within the home also found that some people were not engaged with, despite asking for engagement and help.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. Some people gave positive feedback about how care was delivered by individual staff members, a person told us “Yes always [treated with respect], especially [staff member], she talks to us really lovely.” However, positive experiences were not consistent throughout the home. Some people gave examples of interactions with staff members which had made them feel upset and not listened to.

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. People did not always have access to meaningful activities which were important to them. People did not feel engaged or that they had enough to do. People told us, “I spend a lot of time watching television, but I get so fed up” and “I’m fed up all the time.” The service did have an activities coordinator who demonstrated time spent with people, and the provider had recognised that additional resources were required to meet the needs of the number of people residing at the service.

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. Some examples of kind and compassionate care were observed, however this level of care was not consistently applied across the home. Some observations noted people not being responded to by staff, for example in 1 lounge area a person was talking but not being engaged with. A member of staff was present but was watching television.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Feedback from staff regarding their well-being and support in the workplace was mixed. Some staff told us they felt supported and listened to, however other staff told us they felt unsupported and disliked in the workplace. Staff raised concerns regarding work pressure. Staff told us, “We are all working hard, sometimes because of staff shortages it may affect how we manage risk” and “I don’t feel [concerns about staffing] are being acted upon and there’s no feedback about why.”