Bletchley House Residential Care and 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.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.

We found staff did not consistently interact in a positive person-centred way with people. We observed some interactions between staff and people that were not positive. For example, we observed staff refer to people as “good boy,” or “good girl.” We also observed some occasions where staff did not announce themselves or seek people’s permission before entering people’s bedrooms. We shared these concerns with the provider who told us they would take action by implementing coaching and dignity champions in the service. We will review the impact of this at our next inspection.

However, we also observed staff speak with people with kindness and compassion. People and their relatives told us staff were kind. A relative said, “The staff are very caring, they all seem very patient and gentle with [relative] and they like them and responds well to them, [Relative] always smiles when they come inside the room.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals and 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.For example, where people chose to remain in their rooms, there were limited engagement opportunities for people to participate in outside of the group activities. Where people lived with a sensory impairment, staff did not always take this into consideration when communicating with them. However, some people told us they had been involved in their care plan.One person said, “I know all about my care plan, it’s on the computer in the office, once it’s finalised with updates after review, I read it and I sign it, it’s something I do every time.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. One person told us, “Staff do listen when I say what I can do and don’t need their help, and they are there when I need help, they are not overpowering me, they listen and support.”

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 and act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. For example, we observed when one person was calling out for help, instead of attending to the person with kindness, a staff member proceeded to imitate them. Another person was calling out for 15 mins before staff attended to provide support. However, records showed medical advice was sought when people had accidents and medical concerns were escalated to other professionals, for example the G.P, when needed.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled them. Staff told us they received regular supervision and support. Staff told us they were well supported by leaders and leaders had an open-door policy if they wanted to discuss any issues.