Acer Court Care 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, compassion and dignity in a way that consistently reflected their individual needs and preferences. People living with dementia were not always supported in a manner that promoted their comfort, wellbeing and sense of self.

During the inspection, we observed some people wearing unclean clothing, which did not support their dignity or personal presentation. We also found people did not always have choice and control over where they spent their time within the home. Where people expressed preferences about their environment or wished to spend time in a different area, these wishes were not always respected or acted upon.

In communal areas, we observed people mobilising around the home with limited engagement from staff, with some staff walking past people without acknowledging or interacting with them. This reduced opportunities for meaningful connection, reassurance and support, which are particularly important for people living with dementia. However, there were also examples of positive practice. We observed staff speaking to people in a caring and compassionate manner and providing reassurance when needed.

Feedback about staff was generally positive, with people describing staff as kind and respectful. One person told us, “The staff are so accommodating and nothing is too much trouble. Most are lovely but some are more lackadaisical.”

The provider treated people as individuals and delivered care and support that reflected their personal needs, preferences and backgrounds. Care plans contained detailed information about people's likes, dislikes, routines and personal histories, enabling staff to provide care that was tailored to each person's identity, experiences and choices. Records demonstrated consideration of people's strengths, abilities, cultural needs and protected characteristics, supporting a person-centred approach to care.

We saw examples of the provider recognising and responding to what was important to people. For example, one person was supported to visit a local hairdresser who specialised in Afro-Caribbean hair care because maintaining this aspect of their appearance was important to their identity and wellbeing. This demonstrated staff's understanding of the importance of respecting people's cultural backgrounds and individual preferences.

People had opportunities to engage in activities that reflected their interests and hobbies. An activity schedule offered a variety of events across different areas of the home, and people were encouraged to attend activities on other floors if they expressed an interest. We observed personalised approaches to meaningful occupation, including one person who enjoyed spending time in the greenhouse undertaking planting and other simple tasks. Staff supported this interest, helping the person maintain a sense of purpose and independence.

People spoke positively about the opportunities available to them. One person told us, “I love it and try everything to keep busy. I've even discovered quizzes!” Another person said, “We don't join in much or might just watch. We went on an outing to a garden centre with all the Christmas decorations.” These comments demonstrated that people were supported to make choices about how they spent their time and were offered activities that reflected their individual interests.

The provider promoted people's independence and supported them to have choice and control over their care, treatment and day-to-day lives. People were encouraged to maintain and develop existing skills wherever possible, enabling them to remain as independent as their abilities allowed. Staff recognised the importance of supporting people to do things for themselves and tailored their approach to maximise people's confidence, dignity and sense of control.

People told us they were encouraged to remain involved in their personal care and daily routines. One person said, “They’re keen for me to do what I can in the shower, and I can dress myself still. I don’t want people to know I can’t see a lot and want to be treated normally.” This demonstrated staff respected people's wishes and supported them to retain their independence while providing assistance when required.

People were able to make choices about how they spent their time and were not subject to restrictive routines. Those we spoke with told us they had flexibility over their bedtime and morning routines. One person told us, “Bedtime is left up to me. They help me wash and get into my nightie and I’ll sit and watch TV then buzz when I’m ready to be helped into bed.” Another person said, “I don’t have set bedtime or getting up. I just ring if I need something. I like to walk the corridors to keep my legs going so spend some time in the lounge and dining room too.” This showed people were able to make decisions about their daily lives and maintain routines that were important to them.

The provider did not always ensure people's immediate needs, wishes and requests for support were responded to promptly. Systems for monitoring and responding to people's needs were not consistently effective, which meant people were at risk of experiencing delays in receiving care and support when required.

People told us staff did not always respond in a timely manner when assistance was requested. Several people described occasions where they used their call bell and staff attended only to switch it off, informing them they would return later. This meant people were not always receiving support at the point they required it and could be left waiting for assistance with their care and wellbeing needs.

People were not always able to summon help when they needed it. We found some people did not have access to a call buzzer in their room and did not have alternative systems in place, such as sensor mats, to alert staff when support was required. This increased the risk of people's needs going unnoticed, particularly for those who required regular monitoring or were unable to independently seek assistance.

During the inspection, we observed people calling out for help whilst staff were not positioned in areas of the home where they could hear and respond. As a result, people were left without support when they required assistance. These findings demonstrated that staff were not always responsive to people's immediate needs and that systems to ensure people could access timely support were not consistently effective.

The provider did not always promote and support staff wellbeing in a way that enabled staff to consistently deliver person-centred care. Feedback from staff about their experiences of working at the service was mixed, indicating staff did not have a consistently positive experience of support, engagement or leadership.

Several staff told us they did not feel adequately supported by the management team and did not always feel their concerns were listened to or acted upon. Comments included, “I do not feel supported at all by the management team; I wouldn’t even go to them if it was the last resort,” and, “The management is poor as they don’t always communicate with us or listen to staff's concerns.” This suggested staff did not always feel confident raising issues or that their wellbeing was prioritised by leaders.

However, other staff spoke positively about aspects of working at the service and said they valued the flexible working arrangements available to them. Staff also told us they appreciated initiatives such as staff appreciation days and employee of the month awards, which recognised their contribution to the service.

Despite these positive initiatives, morale within the home was low. The provider acknowledged this and recognised that improvements were needed. They told us they were taking steps to improve staff engagement and wellbeing by creating additional opportunities for staff to share their views, including discussions with managers, anonymous feedback mechanisms and human resources drop-in clinics.