The Devonshire Also known as 1- 3883899011

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 55 (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.

During the inspection we observed mixed interactions between staff and people. Some staff demonstrated warm and caring interactions, while others did not. We saw instances where staff failed to acknowledge people. For example, 1 staff member entered a person’s room without knocking or explaining why they were there, raised the person’s bed and hoovered underneath, and left without any interaction. We also observed a person sitting in a communal area who received no interaction from multiple staff members who entered and left the room.

Saff told us how they respected people’s privacy and dignity, 1 staff member told us, “As a carer it’s 1 of my priorities to make sure [person’s] privacy and dignity is respected. To make sure we are achieving dignity I would knock on the door, it’s important to do this even if [person] can’t respond. You have to draw the curtains, close the door.”

People we spoke with told us staff were kind and caring, 1 person told us, “I am generally very happy, they’re all a good bunch of staff there and all of them are super caring. I have nothing bad to say about them, all of them are caring.”

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 treated people as individuals and respected their views and choices. People had ‘about me’ books which included information on people’s backgrounds, hobbies, interests and what was important to them. It also provided guidance to staff on what may cause people to become distressed, and how best to support them in times of distress. This information helped staff gain an understanding of people’s preferences and interests and supported meaningful conversations.

People were supported to engage with religious practices that were important to them and a member of local clergy visited regularly. We observed 1 person was supported to access religious services on their mobile device, which was important to them.

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

The provider had an activities team providing a weekly activities programme. During the inspection we saw activities being offered to people. However, the activities were not person centred, or in line with people’s specific interests. People who were able to walk were encouraged to sit in the lounge together and join in with activities. However, people who stayed in bed had very little stimulation, most people’s rooms were not personalised. One relative told us, “[person] likes [their] room, but we have been waiting for ever for it to be decorated and that was several years ago when it was supposed to be being done.” We did not see personalised activities offered to people. One person told us, “I just have no one to talk to except myself and the tv, there is no one here to talk to at all, they don’t speak, it feels like an incarceration sometimes.” This meant people were at an increased risk of social isolation.

People who were more physically mobile had enjoyed trips such as bowling, going to a café and shopping. We spoke with a senior member of staff who told us they were aware activities needed to be improved, and an action plan had been created. On the second day of inspection, staff from another home were attending to support with the activities being offered.

People were encouraged to maintain their independence where possible. For example, on the second day of inspection we observed 1 person being encouraged to eat independently, when staff saw they were finding this difficult they then supported the person to finish their meal. We observed 1 person who wasn’t engaging with eating at lunch time. One staff member sat and talked to the person about growing vegetables in their garden, this helped the person relax and they happily ate their lunch supported by the staff member.

Staff told us how they promoted independence. Comments included, “When it comes to clothing you give [people] a choice so they can make their own choice of what they would like to wear, this promotes dignity,” and, “I ask for the [person’s] preferences, encourage them to complete tasks that they are able to and only support them when they ask or wish for it.”

Staff responded to people’s needs when they requested support, however people were not always able to request support due to call bells not always being left within people’s reach.

On the first day of inspection, we observed call bells were not always left within reach of people. For example, call bells were found on the floor behind people’s beds. We raised this with the registered manager who told us this was due to some people being assessed as not able to use their call bells. However, records indicated people who were able to use their call bells did not always have their call bell left within reach. On the second day of inspection, we observed more calls bells were left within reach of people. When people did press their call bell for assistance, they were answered in a timely manner. One relative told us, “[Person] does have a call bell, when [they] use it, they are slow sometimes.” Relatives told us they often noticed how frequently call bells would ring throughout their visit.

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

Some staff we spoke with told us they felt supported in their role, either by the registered manager or other members of the management team. However, some staff we spoke with told us they didn’t always feel supported. One staff member told us, “I have mixed feelings regarding being supported in my role. There are some clinical leads and a deputy manager that I feel supported by without question, if I am not sure on something or want to learn something they are willing to take the time to help me or support me with it. However, I am often confused with tasks involved in my job role because 1 deputy and the manager say for me to do certain things 1 minute then the next, I am only allowed to do something else. There is no consistency.”

Most staff told us there were not enough staff on each unit, this made staff feel under pressure. One staff member told us, “There have been many times where multiple nurses have been given annual leave at the same time resulting in a shortage of nurses or medication trained staff within the home, this has also resulted in many times where a clinical lead has had to step in to run that unit, this in turn has left the home without an active clinical lead who is there to support staff with incidents and support where required.”