Seymour House-Northwood

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 service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

The last rating for this key question was 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.

We identified breaches of legal regulations relating to person-centred care.

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 provide person-centred care. They did not always explain what they were doing or offer choices. For example, a member of staff who was helping a person with their lunch sat down and started supporting them without explaining about the food they were offering. They left the person to attend to other tasks in the middle of the meal and then returned without explanation. Staff took a meal to another person who was asleep. They told the person their meal was there but then walked away without properly engaging with the person or making sure they were awake. Over the next 20 minutes, 2 different staff approached the person, gave them a forkful of food and then walked away. We saw the person was able to manage independently after this. The approach was not personalised, and the person would have benefitted from a staff member sitting with them and encouraging them rather than physically intervening and then leaving them.

Staff interactions with people were often task based. Staff asked people if they wanted drinks and food, brought this to them and encouraged them to eat and drink. Staff also supported people to use the bathroom. However, these interactions were time limited. At times, staff stood or sat near people without speaking with them. Staff walked past people without interacting. Sometimes interactions lacked thought, because staff would call something out as they walked away rather than properly engaging with people. These staff did not wait for a response.

However, a small number of staff demonstrated good practice showing a person-centred approach. All staff were kind and polite when speaking with people.

People using the service and their relatives told us they were well treated. Their comments included, “Staff are kind”, “[Person] is treated with respect” and “They are pretty good here.” People told us they were able to make choices about the gender of care workers supporting them with intimate personal care.

People were not always treated as individuals. Staff were not able to tell us about people’s lives before they moved to the home, their preferences or interests. Care plans did not give enough personalised information about people. The registered manager showed us examples of life story books the staff were starting to develop for people who lived at the service.

The provider arranged for special events and celebrations to take place. These included religious festivals. Local churches visited the home to offer communion and run services. One person commented, “I like the church visiting. This is important for my wellbeing.”

People were not always offered choices. People told us they were able to make choices about meals. However, on the day of our visit, most people received the same meal plated in the same way, with no choices of condiments.

Some people took part in activities outside the home that helped with their independence. However, there was not always enough for people to do to avoid boredom and give them mental stimulation at the service.

Whilst staff organised some social activities, these were short and not available to everyone. For example, on the day of our visit, staff organised a music quiz. This was enjoyed by people but lasted only 16 minutes. Only a small number of people took part in this. Additionally, the television and another music source in the same room were not turned off during the activity. Before and after this event, there were no other organised activities. People were not offered things to do on their own. Most people were either asleep or seated without any engagement or activity for much of the day.

People told us they liked some of the activities although 1 person said, “There is not much going on.” A second person commented, “I would like to have some more personal activities and opportunities for physiotherapy.” The provider organised some regular activities which people enjoyed, including visits from a therapy dog.

Staff did not always respond to people’s immediate needs. Staff did not always notice when people called out or needed assistance. For example, 1 person called out, “Excuse me” several times as staff walked past. However, staff did not stop to respond to them.

On occasions, people became upset or visibly distressed. Staff were kind and supported them in a caring manner, offering people the opportunity to move and go somewhere else. However, we noted that some staff lacked the skills to support people who were confused. For example, when 1 person was talking about their parents; the staff member did not try to reorient them and tried to tell the person about their marital partner. The person explained they were not married but the staff member kept repeating they were. This led to greater distress for the person at that time.

The registered manager told us that staff were responsive when people became unwell. This was confirmed by a visiting professional.

The provider promoted workforce wellbeing. Staff felt well supported and able to discuss their work with managers. They took part in regular individual and team meetings. The registered manager told us they offered additional support for staff to complete training when needed.