Bamburgh Supported Living

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations in relation to treating people with dignity and respect.
 

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not treated with compassion, dignity and respect at all times. People's care plans and incident reports contained language that was not compassionate, dignified or person-centred when describing their needs. We found examples of language that could be perceived as punitive rather than supportive of people's needs, with people’s communication labelled as ’behaviour’ without consideration of context or unmet needs. Examples included, ‘Demands are not being met’, ‘Becoming demanding towards staff’, ‘Being told ‘No’’ and the need to, ‘Take accountability for behaviour’ and demonstrate, ‘Acceptable behaviour’.

Incident reports did not consistently demonstrate a respectful and compassionate understanding of how people communicated when experiencing distress. They did not consider what could have been done differently to minimise the risk of the person experiencing distress. The terminology used across care documentation did not reflect current best practice or promote a person-centred approach to care and support.

Despite these concerns, we received generally positive feedback from people and relatives about the kindness of staff. Relatives told us staff knew people well and understood how they liked to be supported. Comments included, “They are all friendly” and “[Person] knows the staff are there to help them if needed.”
 

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or ensure their care and support reflected their needs, preferences and wishes. Whilst staff were able to tell us about people’s preferences for support, we found their care plans did not fully consider people's strengths, abilities, aspirations, cultural needs, backgrounds or protected characteristics. Records did not provide sufficient guidance for staff on how to deliver holistic, person-centred support that reflected what was important to the person and how best to achieve good outcomes.

Whilst care records did not always reflect people's preferences and aspirations, we saw examples of people's home environments being personalised to reflect their individual tastes and interests. One relative said, "[Person’s] bedroom is their domain."
 

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, support and wellbeing.

People’s care records were not consistently person-centred and did not always promote people's strengths, achievements or aspirations. Records often focused on the management of tasks rather than how people could be supported to develop skills and increase their independence. The provider could not always demonstrate how people were empowered to have greater choice and control over their lives and what they wanted to achieve.

Despite these concerns, people’s care plans did provide information about how to maintain their independence in daily care and staff were able to describe how they encouraged people to make choices about their daily lives.

People were supported to take part in activities that reflected their interests and preferences. Relatives told us people went out regularly and were encouraged to make choices about how they spent their time.
 

The provider did not always demonstrate how they listened and responded to people’s needs in the moment to minimise discomfort or concerns. Incident reports did not consistently evidence how staff had responded to provide reassurance, address people’s needs promptly or reduce potential distress. The provider had not always reviewed this information to identify learning or demonstrate how people were supported during periods of distress to improve their experience.

The provider could not always demonstrate how staff wellbeing was supported. Whilst the provider told us workforce wellbeing initiatives were in place, we received mixed feedback from staff about how supported and valued they felt. Some staff spoke positively about the support available, whilst others told us they did not always feel listened to and described low morale. Some staff told us they did not feel adequately supported when managing incidents involving people experiencing distress. Comments included, “I'm concerned for the physical and mental wellbeing of the staff due to the lack of support from upper management” and “The staff are not supported after incidents.”