Archived: Gorton Parks Care 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care. The provider did not ensure care and treatment ensuring peoples preferences and needs were met.

This service scored 35 (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 always not treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Our observations during the inspection showed that staff were kind and respectful towards people; however, we also identified several examples of poor care. On arrival at Abbey Hey House, we found one person asleep in a communal lounge chair with a slipper and sock missing from one foot. During mealtimes, we observed food and drinks cooling before people were supported to eat and drink. People who remained in their bedrooms were not checked regularly. A staff member told us, mandatory checks, such as repositioning and room checks, were built into the electronic care‑planning system. However, due to staffing levels and the increased needs of people, these checks were not always completed, despite being marked as done on the system.

People and relatives told us there was a lack of meaningful interaction and activity across the home. Throughout the inspection, we observed people being offered colouring sheets and basic arts‑and‑crafts tasks at a table, regardless of their individual interests, abilities or preferences. This task‑based approach did not promote dignity, as people were not supported in ways that recognised their identity, life history or personal choices. The limited and repetitive activities meant people were not given opportunities to engage in meaningful occupation, express themselves, or experience a sense of purpose, which impacted their wellbeing and dignity. Comments from people and relatives included, “It is alright here and it isn’t. Staff are helpful, but I'm not allowed to go outside. I am just lumped in with everyone else. I've worked outside all my life, and I don’t like being in all the time.” and “I don’t think they do many activities. I am here every day and don’t see a lot to be honest.”

Some relatives told us; they found staff were not engaged with people. They told us, often staff were sat using devices rather than spending meaningful time with people.

The provider had failed to ensure people experienced meaningful and fulfilling days. People were left isolated in their bedrooms for long periods without interaction, stimulation or reassurance. This lack of engagement did not promote dignity, as people were not supported to feel valued, connected or included in daily life.

In communal areas, we observed several people sleeping in chairs for extended periods, with hot drinks cooling beside them and no prompts or encouragement to drink. These observations showed that people were not receiving attentive, person‑centred support and were at risk of having their basic comfort, wellbeing and dignity overlooked.

Care was often delivered in a routine, task‑orientated way rather than being shaped around each person’s preferences, interests and needs. We observed limited attempts to understand what mattered to people or to support them in ways that reflected their identity, history or personal choices. This was particularly evident when people became agitated, as staff did not always appear to know the most appropriate way to support them. We reviewed one incident where a person had hit another person with a plate during a period of aggression. The recorded strategy for managing this behaviour was for staff to offer the individual a hot cup of tea. It was unclear how providing further crockery containing hot liquid would reduce the risk of harm or help the person to become calmer. Care records did not show whether this approach had ever been effective, nor did they provide alternative strategies tailored to the person’s needs. This lack of personalised guidance meant staff were not equipped to support people safely or in a way that upheld their dignity and individual preferences.

Several people and relatives told us they had not been able to have their hair cut and styled by a hairdresser with 1 person telling us, they had not had their hair cut for over a year.

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

People were not consistently supported to maintain independence, choice or control over their daily lives. Although people were offered a choice of meals from the menu, the options they selected and the amount they actually consumed were not always accurately reflected in their daily notes.

Relatives also told us their relations were not always offered care that reflected their individual requirements. For example, one person with an autoimmune disorder was given unsuitable biscuits, and another was unable to spend time in the communal lounge because the correct supportive chair was not available.

People told us, they were not always able to have a bath or shower when they wanted or had to have a bed bath. One person told us, they were only permitted to have a bath, once per week. One staff member told us; 4 residents are selected for a bath daily. A second staff member told us they are given a list of people who they are going to shower daily.

Some people, their relatives and staff also told us there were communication barriers with staff whose first language was not English. This sometimes-affected people’s ability to express their choices clearly and meant there was a risk, staff did not always fully understand or respond to people’s individual needs

The provider did not listen to or 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.

During the inspection, we identified multiple instances where people were not supported by staff to meet their immediate and essential needs. Staff did not consistently respond to people who were acutely unwell. Several staff members were already subject to internal investigation for failing to respond in a timely manner, and similar concerns continued to be observed throughout the inspection period.

We also found that people were not receiving appropriate support with nutrition and hydration. For example, one individual received breakfast and a drink at 09:57 on the first day of the inspection and was not offered any further food or fluids until 17:50. This resulted in a significant and avoidable drop in their blood sugar levels, placing them at serious risk of harm.

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 told us there had been some improvements since the current manager had taken up post, including increased access to training. However, staff continued to raise concerns regarding low staffing levels and the impact this was having on morale. One staff member told us, “There are a lot of brilliant carers here, though it often feels like we are short of staff.” Another said, “Sometimes we have hard days and sometimes good days. But more staff are required, as people often have to wait for personal care because the nurse and two other staff are busy.” A third staff member said, “At time’s I do not get a break as it is so busy.”

Several staff members also expressed anxiety about the future of the service. One staff member told us, “All staff I have spoken to are stressed and on edge about their jobs, but they are conscious of this and do not want bad vibes to affect the residents.”