Marigold 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 outstanding. 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 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff 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 kindness and respect.

Most people told us staff treated them with kindness. However, Interactions between people and staff were mixed, with some care being more task orientated. There were occasions when people’s dignity was not prioritised, such as ensuring doors were fully closed when providing personal care.

Staff 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 always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Staff were not always attentive to people’s individual needs. At lunchtime people requiring adapted crockery were not provided with this without being prompted. Staff did not always take time to properly engage with people, so they knew what care people wanted. A staff member commented, “Communication skills definitely need improvement and listening and understanding exactly what the residents want.”

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

People were able to participate in a range of activities. There were activities on-going during our inspection. Staff and relatives gave generally positive feedback about the range of activities but felt more could be done to increase the availability of activities, especially when the activity coordinator was not on duty.

Staff did not listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. There were times when staff had not dealt with people’s needs in a timely way to ensure they remained comfortable, such as referring people to external professionals. A relative commented, “Staff can be very slow to respond and often fail to chase things up.” Relatives also told us about issues with the laundry, particularly the length of time it took to get clothes back and items regularly going missing.

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. Supervision records were not always meaningful and specific to the individual staff member, as they contained identical wording and lacked the views of the staff member.