St Martins Residential 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 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.

As highlighted within this assessment report, our observations demonstrated staff interactions on occasions were minimal and task focused, rather than being person-centred. However, staff were knowledgeable about each person’s needs and how to support them.

People spoken with were happy with the care and support provided by staff at the service. People told us staff were kind and provided them with good care and support. Comments included, “Staff are pretty good, they treat me as a person, they are kind” and “Staff are caring and that is important, more important than anything. The staff are very good.” Relatives’ comments were similarly positive, and comments included, “The care is excellent, staff are all very friendly” and “[Family member] has settled well, it is much better here [St Martins Residential Care Home] than where they were.”

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 history, backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s protected characteristics under the Equalities Act 2010, such as age, disability, religion and race were identified as part of their need’s assessment where completed. Staff knew about people’s individual characteristics.

The provider promoted people’s independence and privacy but did not always promote and afford people choice or consistently treat them with dignity.

Staff told us they understood people’s rights and choices and were able to tell us about how they tried to include people in decisions. However, this did not always happen in practice. Observations during our assessment demonstrated people were not routinely offered choices.For example, during the day people were not always given a choice of drinks, clothes protectors were placed on people without gaining their consent and gravy was poured onto people’s dinner without their agreement. People were not always treated with dignity. For example, a member of staff was observed to assist 2 people to eat their meal at the same time.

People were supported by staff to maintain aspects of their independence. For example, people had access to appropriate equipment, such as walking frames to help maximise their mobility. Where applicable, people were encouraged to retain their autonomy at mealtimes by eating independently or with minimal staff support. Staff confirmed that some people who were very reliant on staff for most activities of daily living, were actively encouraged to undertake some aspects of their personal care, such as washing their face and hands, and brushing their teeth, to maximise their independence. People told us, “I like the fact staff are not intrusive, I am left to it, they [staff] would support me if I wanted it, they leave me to my own devises. I feel I am capable to look after myself” and “I shave myself, dress myself and listen to the news. I am content.”

People received support with their personal care in private and staff were discreet when asking people if they required support to have their comfort needs met. People were supported to maintain their personal appearance to ensure their self-esteem and sense of self-worth.

People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them, including family members and friends. The service supported visits for people living at St Martins Residential Care Home and people were able to receive visitors without restrictions. A person using the service told us, “I have plenty of visitors.”

The provider and staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. For example, as already recorded within this assessment report, people’s dining experience was not as positive as it should be.

The provider did not always care about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff’s training was not embedded in their day to day practice and not all staff had received appropriate supervision.

Staff well-being was being supported and advocated.Information was readily available and displayed for staff relating to wellbeing initiatives. For example, the Employee Assistance Programme [EAP]. This is a benefit that offers employees confidential support and guidance for personal or professional issues that may affect their work performance and for those struggling with their mental health.

The staff workforce at St Martins Residential Care Home were diverse, including representations from a range of different cultures, ethnicities and religions. The registered manager confirmed appropriate arrangements were in place to recognise different multi-faith festivals and customs for staff.