Archived: Ermington House

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. We identified an ongoing breach of the Dignity and respect regulation.

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.

People and their relatives told us they liked the care staff. We observed kind and caring interactions whilst staff were supporting people, however staff appeared task orientated and feedback from people reflected this. Whilst we received positive feedback, some people described instances where they were not always being treated with kindness, dignity and respect.For example, one person said, “The care has got worse. There are not enough good staff. Some can be rough and rude.” Another person said, “There are some of them who are not good with toileting, they treat you like a child at times.”

A number of people we spoke with told us staff whose first language was not English communicated with each other in their own language, which they did not appreciate. We communicated this to the provider who stated they believed this was more related to staff accent than staff communicating in a different language.

We saw other areas where care was undignified, for example one person had to live in an environment where their bedroom toilet was blocked with faecal matter and there were flies in their bathroom. Another person had a very poorly maintained bathroom floor. Another person told us of an incident where a person who lived at the service had walked into their room and urinated on their clothing within their drawers as the person was unsupervised. This contributed to a breach of the dignity and respect regulation.

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

Our observations showed staff knew people well and as individuals, however we identified staff seemed very task orientated. People’s comments reflected this. Whilst people were mainly positive about the staff that supported them, comments reflected care was not individual and personalised. For example, 1 person said, “They seem to know what they are doing. I get on well with them. They are in and out, never time to chat.” Another person commented, “They are all well-meaning, but everything is done by routine.”

People were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family. Visitors were made to feel welcome into the service, we saw relatives came to visit their relatives on both days of our assessment visit.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, choice and wellbeing.

We saw evidence of activities taking place and there was a long standing member of staff who supported people with daily activities. The activities member of staff was clearly committed to ensuring the best possible outcomes for people. They told us plans for Christmas included making crowns, the local vicar coming, and making Christmas cards. Although records for 2 people indicated they enjoyed spending time outdoors and walking around the grounds, our review of documented activities showed they had not been outside the service for a minimum of 28 days. A health professional told us, “I feel the residents are provided with the bare minimum. It would be nice to see more social activities.”

We identified a large number of people preferred to stay in their room alone for large periods of time. Some told us this was their choice and they were happy staff respected this. However, some mentioned they were bored and others said they did not find the lounge area pleasurable to be in. One comment was, “I spend most of the time in my room as there can be too much shouting and screaming in the lounge.” Another said, “The biggest thing wrong with this place is the boredom. I can’t change the channels on my TV. The staff have too much to do to sit and tune it for me and they haven’t explained how to.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were visible throughout our assessment visit. Whilst we observed staff were task focussed and did not have time to sit and talk with people, it was evident they were trying their best to support people when requested. For example, when people requested support with the toilet, staff did respond in a timely way, coming back if they were in the middle of another task.

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.

Staff at the service told us they did not feel well supported or cared for by the provider or management team. Staff told us they were continually understaffed and did not feel appreciated. Some told us they felt like they were continually being pulled from, “pillar to post”, being asked to multi-task between care, housekeeping and cooking to cover sickness and absence.

There was a clear absence of morale amongst the staff team. One staff member told us, “We are trying our utmost to provide the best care for our residents, but with the lack of support from the company our efforts are futile.” We spoke to the provider and nominated individual about this. They attributed these comments to the fact some staff were currently being performance managed.