Dalemain House

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

For example, we observed a staff member providing reassurance to a person who was upset. People and their families provided positive feedback about staff, with comments including, “They have time for [Name]. Even if [staff] are busy, they aren’t impatient with her” and “The best thing about the place is the staff.”

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.

For example, some care plans and risk assessments contained names of different people, and some records for different individuals contained identical information.

People did not always receive care in line with their care plans or preferences, but instead was task focused. For example, choices regarding daily routines, such as when to wake up or take a shower, were sometimes not respected and were completed according to staffing levels or routine. Some staff members confirmed they were encouraged to wake people up and wash them at a specific time.

Some family members provided positive feedback about how their relatives were treated. Comments included, “They know him better than I do!” and “They know her well. They talk to her to find things out.”

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.

There was an overall lack of activities and stimulation for people. The provider did not employ a dedicated activities coordinator, so care staff were responsible for facilitating activities. Staff told us, “We do not have time to do activities with people, we barely have time to speak to them.” Our observations confirmed people received limited stimulation.

Family members agreed that activities could be improved. One family member told us, “I don’t see an awful lot of activities. There isn’t much other stimulation other than conversation.” The manager confirmed an external organisation visited the home for one hour a week to facilitate activities for people, such as chair exercises.

We observed people being offered choices of meals and where they would like to sit.

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. For example, care plans and risk assessments were not always in place for people with specific needs, which meant staff had no guidance for managing some people’s health needs and associated risks. This increased the likelihood of inconsistent care delivery and put people at greater risk of incidents. However, we were assured staff knew people well, and the use of agency staff was minimal.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Overall, staff gave positive feedback about the manager and the support received. Staff provided examples where flexibility and reasonable adjustments had been made to support their personal situations.

Comments from staff included, “The manager is there for the residents and staff always,” “The manager has an open-door policy, can knock and speak to her about professional or personal issues” and “The manager is really good, she looks after us.”