Applegarth 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 service involved people andtreated them with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment, this key question 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, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with respect.

The condition of the premises did not demonstrate the provider consistently respected people or maintained an environment that promoted their wellbeing. Several rooms lacked appropriate window coverings, such as blinds or curtains and not all areas of the home were clean or well maintained.

Healthcare professionals told us that on occasions, emails or calls were not always responded to in a timely manner. This did not demonstrate respect for professionals or support timely, coordinated care.

However, the staff team demonstrated kindness, empathy, and respect in their interactions with people and relatives.

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

Staff knew people well and understood their preferences, routines, and cultural backgrounds. People were supported to express their identity, and staff respected religious and cultural practices. One person said, I do a lot of things I like. They help me with that.”

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

Staff supported people to do as much for themselves as possible, using adapted equipment and gentle encouragement. People chose how to spend their day, what to eat, and when to receive care. One person said, “I go out when I want and come back when I want too.”

People were encouraged to participate in activities, including exercise classes and outings. One staff member told us, “We have just had a trip to Caldbeck, we have an accessible vehicle for residents to go on visits. We are members of the Engine Lonning club (a nature reserve and former railway engine yard in Carlisle).”

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 or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Records did not always demonstrate that staff responded to people’s needs in the moment. We identified shortfalls relating to medicines management, nutrition and hydration, and repositioning, which impacted the consistency and effectiveness of care. Additionally, healthcare professionals told us that emails or calls were not always responded to in a timely manner which raised concerns about communication and the potential impact on timely, coordinated care.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We received mixed feedback from staff. Some told us they felt valued and had manageable workloads, while others reported low morale and feeling unsupported. Views on opportunities to provide feedback to the management team were also varied, some staff felt listened to, while others did not feel their voices were heard. We brought these concerns to the attention of the management team for action.