Southlands Court Residential 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 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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

On one occasion, undignified terminology was used by a member of staff. This was in relation to a description of how people were supported with their meals. We discussed this with the management team who agreed to address this.

Following our site visits, we received an update from the provider, which stated, ‘In response to observations regarding communication and tone, we are actively exploring the implementation of a "language of care" training session. This will focus on fostering respectful, compassionate, and consistent communication across the entire team.’ We received the language of care document which clearly set out the terminology which should be used when communicating with and talking about people. This showed a proactive approach to addressing issues raised by others, which needed embedding within the service.

Staff told us how they maintained people’s privacy and dignity when assisting with personal care. For example, asking what support they required before providing care and explaining what needed to be done so that the person knew what was happening.

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.

During our first day on-site, we saw limited staff engagement with people which was meaningful. Care and support was task orientated. This coincided with a member of staff calling in sick at short notice. On our second day, this had improved and staff were engaging well with people.

Care and support plans contained some information about people’s personal histories but required further work. This additional detail would help staff to provide appropriate, individualised care and support to people.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People confirmed they were able to remain as independent as possible.

When staff engaged with people, they asked them if they needed any support, even if they were known to be independent, to ensure they felt cared for. People were encouraged to remain as mobile as possible.

Throughout our visits we saw people being encouraged by staff to be independent. For example, whilst moving around the home, and eating independently with the aid of adaptations where assessed as needed.

People were supported to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them, this included access to their friends and family.

There was a range of appropriate equipment to support and maximise people’s independence and outcomes.

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 did not always feel staff responded to their needs in a timely manner. Comments included, “Staff are always in a rush as they have got work to get on with. If you need them to help you, you have to wait. I am lucky, I can look after myself” and “Occasionally you have to wait a while for call bells to be answered.”

On our first day at Southlands Court, we observed periods where communal areas were left unsupervised, and staff did not respond promptly to people’s requests for assistance. This did not demonstrate staff being responsive to people’s individual needs. On our second day, this had improved and staff were responding to people’s needs in a timely manner.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

The provider was working hard to instil a culture of care in which staff truly valued and promoted people’s individuality, protected their rights, and enabled them to develop and flourish. This was being addressed through changes to the management structure and staff meetings and supervisions.

Changes to the management structure had been recognised as one of the provider’s priorities. This was to ensure clear leaders were visible within the service; were approachable and took a genuine interest in what people, staff, family, and other professionals had to say.

The provider promoted equality and diversity in all aspects of the running of the service.