Badby Park

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 were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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.

People were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion and staff respected their privacy and dignity.

People and their relatives told us that staff were kind and caring. We observed staff talking with people with a kind calm and patient tone in what was sometimes challenging circumstances. A staff member told us, “When it comes to being caring, I’m happy to say I’m part of a team that really cares about the residents.”

We observed doors were closed when supporting people with personal care and staff knocked on people’s doors prior to entering. People were observed to be appropriately dressed in clean clothing. Some people looked like they were ready for a haircut, a staff member advised that the hairdresser was no longer being used by the service and they were waiting for an alternative provision for people that could not access the community.

A relative told us their family member had been refusing personal care support. They said, “The therapy team have been in touch quite a lot to get to know the person better.”

The provider and staff treated people as individuals in supporting their culture, unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. However, their individual care needs were not always met. Peoples care plans included information on them as an individual such as, their family, work history, hobbies and their likes and dislikes. This meant staff could have meaningful conversations with people. However, we found that care planned to meet people’s individual needs was not always met, for example, activities, care of specialist feeding equipment and monitoring of medical equipment or devices.

People had been supported to take part in religious services and celebrations as they wished. There was a multi faith room on site that people could use and some people chose to attend chapel or church of their faith. People were making choices about their care at point of delivery and staff respected the wishes of people who refused care.

The provider did not always promote people’s choice and control over their own care and wellbeing.

The provider did not employ staff to provide activity for people. Activities were available such as visiting singers, pet therapy and crafts, but there were people in the service that chose to spend time in their room or would find it difficult to take part in group activities. There was limited evidence that people were supported with 1:1 activities. Care notes show some were offered activities which they expressed no interest in and an alternative of their choice or an activity detailed in their care plan was not offered. For example, where a person had an interest in an activity away from the home there was no evidence this had been offered.

Records evidenced an independent advocate had raised some concerns with the service and the local authority regarding an activity that they should be taking part in, we found no evidence the concerns had been actioned.

People were encouraged to maintain relationships with their families; we saw that families were supported to meet outside of the home if they wished and some people did go home for short stays and celebrations. The provider arranged transport for families who were out of county with transport issues.

Staff told us and we observed they supported choice as much as possible. A staff member said, “I support people’s decisions by listening and helping them safely, I understand people can make unwise choices, my job is to reduce risks while respecting their wishes”. The staff member gave an example, “Someone may go for a walk alone but I check they have proper shoes and a phone.”

People told us they were supported with choice and making their own decisions. A person told us, “They [staff] show me things, ask me if I want to wear it, like this t-shirt”. The person went on to tell us they were given the choice of a male or female carer.

Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed that people’s call bells were answered promptly by staff. Staff were observant and attentive to people’s immediate need. However, due to insufficient staffing numbers we observed that this sometimes meant staff having to leave another person mid support to attend to an immediate need before returning apologising and carrying on. A staff member told us “For people who cannot communicate verbally, I watch for signs like changes in behaviour, facial expressions, or body language. For example, I once quickly alerted a nurse when someone showed signs of pain, so they received help straight away.” A person told us, “I don’t think they can be better, my TV broke and half an hour later an engineer was here.” The person also told us that if they were in pain staff immediately acted, they said, “They (staff) get onto it straight away and the pain killing tablets are really good, they are really on it with this.”

The provider did not always care about and promote the well-being of all of their staff. They did not always support or enable all staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they were not always supported well following incidents or deaths in the service. Some staff told us they would have appreciated better support following accidents and bereavements in the home. One staff member told us that some staff tried not to become too close to people so that loss was not as difficult. Another staff member told us that debriefs post-accident needing improvement to ensure staff well-being. We observed a poster on one of the units advertising a half hour reflective practice session on Tuesdays.

Some staff reported a blame culture and told us they would be reluctant to raise concerns while others reported a positive experience. One staff member said, “If I have struggled, I have received guidance and support from managers or senior staff.” Staff feedback indicated that levels of staff support were inconsistent across the home.