Chorlton Place Nursing 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.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed people being treated with kindness and respect in a calm environment, with caring staff who knew people well. Staff were heard talking to people kindly with comments such as “Here you go, your drink, just how you like it” and “Your [relative] is coming in today”. Reassurance through gentle touch, tone, and body language were all observed. People and families provided positive feedback and told us “They know [Name] can get anxious, they work to her schedule”; “Staff know (Name), they are attuned to what is normal for them and pick up when they are not well. When I go on holiday, I know they will be fine here and well looked after” and “I know the staff well, I actually feel well cared for”.

We observed people being treated with privacy and dignity. Support was delivered discreetly and not rushed. A relative told us “The carers always ask me to leave the room if they are washing or changing (Name). I did the personal care for years, but they are just protecting (Name’s) dignity.”

Staff demonstrated respect for other professionals by their positive references to them and adherence to their advice. Professionals did not raise any concerns about treatment of people or professionals by staff.

Two people we spoke to said that most staff were nice but there were some staff that were not but did not wish to elaborate any further. We shared this with the management team.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff understood the importance of treating people as individuals with their own needs, routines and wishes. There was a stable staff team and staff we spoke with knew what people liked to eat and drink, their routines, activities they enjoyed and details about their friends and family. Observed interactions evidenced staff providing tailored support to people.

Bedrooms and communal areas displayed events and celebrations of different cultures and religious events reflective of the people being supported in the care home. The care home told us they planned to introduce a prayer room/ multi faith room in the building. Religious leaders were invited into the home and community visits to meet religious needs were accommodated. The care home had links to organisations such as The Deaf Society who had trained staff to support people when required.

Some care plans were personalised and reflected people’s choices in how their care was delivered and what they wanted to achieve. Strategies to meet outcomes and encourage independence were evident and observed to be put into practice. However, some care plans required further work to be truly person-centred. Care plans were regularly updated and most reflected cultural and religious needs. Staff knew people well even if this information was not always fully reflected in their care plans. The provider had already identified that some care plans needed to be updated and expanded upon in parts.

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

Personalised care plans detailed how people wanted their care to be delivered. Positive risk taking was recorded and appropriately assessed and this promoted independence and choice. Strategies to promote independence and prevent deskilling were clearly recorded.

People’s choices were respected. A person informed us that “I have told them that I am not taking my water tablets anymore, I have been very clear with them, and they respected that, the doctor is here to see me about it” and “I don’t go to meetings. I have told (staff) it’s just not for me, that sort of thing”. We observed people wanting to get up, walk around, change the TV station, or go elsewhere and they were always supported to do so.

Visiting and telephone contact was encouraged without restrictions. People told us they can use the office phone whenever they like, and visitors were made to feel welcome.

Some people told us that they preferred to stay in their bedrooms in the day. They told us staff do come in to see them, and when they use the nurse call bell, staff come as quickly as they can, one person added that “At night you have to be patient, as there are not many staff on then”.

The home employed a wellbeing coordinator and offered a range of activities both on a one-to-one basis and in groups. External activities also took place on occasion and outside agencies such as schools were invited in. All communal rooms had a variety of appropriate activity items for people, some of which were comforting and dementia friendly. Each lounge chair had a small table next to it with an item on it, which encouraged engagement and stimulation.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. However, we found on one occasion, staff had not responded to a person’s needs in the moment or acted promptly to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. One person had become acutely unwell, and staff had failed to identify this deterioration. This was being investigated by the provider to ensure the person did not come to any further harm.

Staff attended daily meetings and received information from their seniors regarding any changed needs. The home used an electronic care system that alerted staff to any new changes with a requirement that any alerts were read, prior to care provision. Staff demonstrated to us how the system also alerted them to time specific care that was due to be completed soon. This ensured that care needs were not delivered late.

People were provided with movement sensors that alerted staff where necessary, and people in bedrooms were provided with a nurse call bell that was clipped within reach. People and families told us that the call bells were answered in a reasonable time. The call bell audit evidenced good response times, 95% of calls were answered within target times, with no one waiting outside of the target times for higher risk areas (ensuite) or emergency calls.

During the assessment we saw staff responding to people when they sought support or were due support. For example, people were supported with moving and handling, toileting, and with meals or drinks in a timely manner.

All people that we spoke to said they were given more than enough food and drink. Comments included “I have plenty to eat and drink, oh yes plenty!”.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. However, we did receive some feedback from staff that that they did not always think their views were listened to or respected.

At the time of our assessment a temporary manager was in place. All the staff we spoke to told us that the manager spoke to each staff member daily. Staff told us that they liked this approach, it made them feel respected and valued.

Most of the staff we spoke to said that they did not have enough time to do activities with people, and that the units would benefit from more staff. The provider did utilise a dependency tool to calculate staffing levels and during the days of our onsite assessment we observed appropriate staffing levels.

Staff told us they had good access to training and support and were given the skills they needed to do their role. Staff told us that online training can take place in the office, and they would be paid for this, but most told us that they chose to do this at home.

The provider had a wellbeing collective that provided benefits and perks for staff. Staff attended regular team meetings and had twice yearly individual meetings with management and there are staff with extra skills ‘champions’ to support people and staff.