Temple Ewell Nursing 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. People and relatives told us staff were kind but could often be rushed when providing care. Some people had built good relationships with staff and had their favourites, who knew them well. However, some people told us about when they had not always been moved in the way they preferred which did not feel dignified. People did not have a keyworker in place to discuss their concerns or review their needs.

We observed staff knock on people’s doors before entering and speaking to them in a kind tone of voice.

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. Care plans did not always include information about people’s cultural and religious needs. People and relatives told us, they had not always been involved in the writing or review of their care plans. People who were living with autism needs and a learning disability had not been asked about the goals they wished to achieve which included their strengths.

People told us they were supported in line with their preferences most of the time, but this could depend on which staff were supporting them.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People who were living with diabetes did not have a choice of puddings at mealtimes. People’s meals were ordered from an external provider; there were no diabetic puddings ordered to give people a choice. We observed staff offering people lunch and asked about the puddings and were told diabetics could only have a yoghurt as all the other meals had sugar. The registered manager ordered a set number of meals in advance; this did not consider people’s choices. Staff had a tray of each meal option for each floor. However, if all the people at the start of the corridor chose an option there were occasions when people further down the corridor did not have both options.

Some people required decaffeinated drinks, there was only decaffeinated coffee in stock, people did not have the option of a cup of tea if they wanted. When people required their drinks to be thickened, the powder was kept in the kitchen, but there was only one tub with no label. We could not be assured people had access to an adequate supply of thickening powder. Following the inspection, thickening powder was removed from the kitchen, and people had their own supply kept in their room.

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 who expressed distress through behaviour did not have positive behaviour care plans. Staff guidance was reactive, including the actions to take once an incident had taken place. There had been incidents when people had been distressed and staff had not recognised the triggers to de-escalate the situations.

People told us staff responded when they rang their call bell.

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 had requested additional training in supporting people with autism, to help them understand how to support people. This had not been identified by the management team and had not been put in place at the time of the inspection.The provider recognised the long service of staff with an award. Staff had access to an employee assistance programme.

Staff told us, they had been supported with their work pattern to make sure they could look after their family.