Trafalgar 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to providing person-centred care.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

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 take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs were not always documented or understood by all staff. Care plans did not always include information about people’s strengths, abilities, personal goals and aspirations. Staff had limited access to information about people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs and on how to tailor people’s care and support accordingly. This meant people were supported to have their needs met by staff who lacked understanding of the full context of their life experiences.

At our last inspection we found a lack of options for people to be involved in daily activities. At this inspection we found no significant improvements had been made to provide a range of meaningful activities which offered people choice. People were not supported to carry out person-centred activities which were designed to entertain, engage, and stimulate them. Staff did not actively encourage them to take part in social activities relevant to their interests. This meant people were at risk of deterioration of their mental and physical health and wellbeing due to boredom, lack of stimulation and engagement.

Most relatives we contacted expressed their concerns about the lack of mental stimulation experienced by their loved ones. We received mainly negative feedback from people and their relatives about choice of activities at the service. Comments from relatives included, “As far as [my loved one] is concerned there are no activities that [they] can join in with. [My loved one] has never been out of the home” and “Some activities go on in the other lounge like music or craft work, but my loved one] has no capability and cannot join in with these.”

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The provider had processes in place to promote people’s independence; however, they were inconsistent and not always effective. Staff told us they encouraged people to be independent and supported with tasks where needed to help maintain and improve independence. People were offered choice. For example, people were encouraged to personalise their bedrooms with items which meant something to them, making them individualised and identifiable. However, people’s individual needs and preferences were not always fully understood and not always reflected in their care, treatment and support. Care plans did not always contain detailed information about how they would like to be independent and what they could do themselves.

At our last inspection we found people did not always have access to activities and the local community to promote and support their independence, health and wellbeing. At this inspection we found some improvements were made to offer people larger variety of activities however more improvements were needed to enable people to have access to meaningful activities and the local community. For example, we found very little activities were designed specifically to offer sensory stimulation and engagement to people living with dementia. Feedback from staff, relatives and healthcare professionals confirmed that people were not afforded the opportunity to take trips outside of the home. One person told us, “They still advertise on their website they can borrow a minibus, and they take people out. This is misleading. We never go out. There’snothing to do for me.” One of the healthcare professionals expressed concern, “My concern is the lack of social stimulation given to the residents. The times I have visited I have not seen any activities being conducted and conversation between staff and residents seems brief as well.”

People were supported to maintain and develop relationships with those close to them. People and their relatives told us they did not always feel they were treated as individuals, and they felt staff did not always have the time to chat to people or support them with their interests or hobbies. Comments included, “They seem to be kind, but they are very pressed for time” and “The staff are stretched and just do not have the time to sit down with residents.” A member of staff told us, “Sometimes I feel some of the staff just do it themselves as it is quicker and easier."

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. However, they did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

At our last inspection we found staff did not always feel the provider cared about and promoted their wellbeing. At this inspection we found significant improvements were made to promoting the well-being of staff. However, more improvements were needed to support and enable them to deliver person centred care to people. Comments from people and relatives confirmed that some staff lacked direction and did not always have time to sit and talk with people for a meaningful length of time. People and relatives told us some, not all, staff didn’t know people very well. One relative told us, “I think there is low morale amongst the staff. There is a communication issue between some of the carers and residents. This means that they don’t know [my loved one] well in my opinion.”

Systems the provider had in place to monitor and support staff well-being were improved. Staff felt involved and safe to disclose information of concern. We received mostly positive feedback from staff about the management of the service. Most staff told us the new manager was very supportive and approachable, and they noticed significant improvements since they were in post. Staff told us they felt valued and treated in a way which supports their own wellbeing such as appropriate breaks and rest periods. Comments from staff included, “They gave us employee of the month every month with appreciation card and gifts which encourages us to do more hard work.”