Carrington House Limited

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 service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect. Staff did not always treat people in a kind and dignified manner. Some staff practice resulted in people receiving less dignified experiences at times like mealtimes and people went for long periods of time without meaningful interaction from the staff team.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff did not always treat people with kindness, compassion, and dignity. We observed staff to not speak with people kindly during times of the day such as mealtimes. For example, staff told people to ‘‘slow down, it’s not a race’’ as they were eating and told a person they would ‘‘not be happy’’ if they did not finish their meal. People were not always treated with dignity. For example, people were described as ‘blendeds’ if they were supported with modified soft diets. People’s food was all mixed together in one bowl if they had a soft diet and staff did not always know what they were serving to people. We observed staff to speak about people’s personal health needs in front of other people. This was not dignified. People went for extended periods of time without meaningful engagement from the staff team. We saw people go for periods of up to 2 hours without staff speaking with them. One person said, ‘‘It is a bit dull and gloomy here. [Staff] don’t tell me what is going on, so I sit by myself and watch the TV.’’

However, despite our findings we also observed staff to speak kindly with people and treat them with compassion. For example, they spoke with people softly and slowly and spoke with them about how they were feeling. Staff knocked on people’s doors before entering and supported them with privacy and dignity if they needed personal care, for example. People and relatives felt staff were kind and caring. One person said, ‘‘[Staff] are brilliant. They are kind and friendly and nothing is too much for them.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘[Staff] are always happy and use the time they have to engage with [family member] as best they can.’’

The provider did not always treat people as individuals and make sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. At some times of the day, people were left for long periods of time without meaningful engagement. Care records did not always detail how or when people were being supported to follow their individual preferences and social pastimes. It was more difficult to see how people were supported with their preferences if they chose not to take part in the leisure activities on offer in the communal areas. One person said, ‘‘There is not a lot to do here, and I don’t really like playing games so far. I am too old for that.’’

However, we observed staff talking with people about things that interested them. People had been supported to personalise and decorate their rooms, and staff knew what people liked to eat and drink. One person said, ‘‘[Staff] have got to know those little things that make a difference. They know what I like.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘I can’t really fault how hard the staff have tried to get to know [family member] and how they want to be supported. They are always happy when I visit.’’

Staff did not always promote people's independence, rights, choice, and control. For example, people supported with modified soft diets were not given the same choice of meal as other people. They were served a meal that had been blended in advance from the meal before. On our first visit to the service, staff were observed to offer drinks to people by standing in the middle of the room and asking multiple people at once to vote on what they wanted to drink by raising their hand, which did not promote individual choice or control. We also observed people to be served toast for breakfast from a large tray, and the toast all had one topping on it. People were not offered a choice as to what they wanted on their toast. When we asked staff why this was, they told us ‘Most’ people liked the topping, so they no longer offered other toppings. People had limited choices in relation to how they spent their time if they did not wish to take part in the social engagement on offer at the service. One person said, ‘‘I used to be able to go out and about but now I just sit here. Don’t really have another choice.’’ The management team started to address these areas and on our second day at the service improvements had started to happen.

We also observed staff supporting people to make choices in their day to day lives, for example how to spend their time or when to have personal care. Staff promoted people’s independence in ways such as helping them do as much as they could themselves before helping them at time such as walking around the service or eating meals. One person said, ‘‘I like to do as much as I can myself and the staff know this and help me out.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘[Staff] treat [family member] with dignity and will make sure they are in control whilst they are being supported.’’

Staff did not always respond to people's needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress. For example, we observed a person to be feeling unwell, and we asked staff to support them. They did this however, then left the person alone again without checking to make sure they were okay. We could not be assured people’s immediate needs would always be responded to as people were going for longer periods of time without speaking with the staff team.

However, we observed staff to be attentive to people’s needs throughout the day in relation to personal care or making sure they had something to eat and drink. One person said, ‘‘There is always someone about to help you when you need it.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘I visit at all hours and never have a problem finding a staff member when I need one.’’

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. Staff enjoyed their job roles and told us they felt well supported by the management team. Staff were supported to attend meetings and have discussion about their job roles and any help they may need. The management team took time to share staff success, and this was celebrated through ways such as an ‘employee of the month.’