Roberttown Care Home Limited

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 Inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

The provider was in legal breach of regulations in relation to promoting dignity and respect.

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 not treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

We observed variable standards of staff interaction with people using the service. While some staff demonstrated kind and respectful engagement with individuals and their visiting relatives, this was not consistent across the workforce. Not all staff delivered care in a manner that upheld people’s dignity, promoted independence, or ensured their safety.

We saw unsafe manual handling practices. On at least 3 separate occasions, staff were seen pulling people up from chairs by their hands or wrists without prior communication or the use of safe techniques. These practices presented a risk of physical harm and reflected a lack of compliance with safe moving and handling protocols.

In addition, we noted that staff supporting individuals during mealtimes did not consistently engage or communicate with them. For example, 1 person remained in the lounge all morning wearing the same apron from breakfast through to lunchtime, with no attempt made to change it or address their comfort or dignity.

We also observed instances of language and behaviour that failed to demonstrate respect for individuals. One staff member used infantilising language when speaking to a person in a communal area, undermining their dignity. In another serious incident, we found a person sitting on their bed with no clothing on their lower half, wearing only a continence pad, with the bedroom door left open, failing to safeguard the person’s privacy and exposing them to potential distress or embarrassment.

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.

Care plans did not always reflect people as individuals or take into account their strengths, aspirations and expectations and they did not give an essence of who the person was or assess people’s full needs. For example, where 1 person had a particular religious background the care plan did not describe the person’s own views or how they practiced their religion. Overall, the care records for the people we reviewed lacked specific person-centred information.

As a result, there was sometimes a lack of individualised care and support, which meant people did not feel valued as individuals. One person told us, “My preferences are not really listened to.”

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

People using the service were not consistently supported to maintain their independence or make informed choices about their care. We observed a lack of person-centred planning, with limited evidence that people were involved in decisions about how their care was delivered.

Staff did not always offer or promote choices in day-to-day activities such as meals, personal care routines, or how individuals wished to spend their time. In some instances, people were told what to do or when to do it, rather than being offered options or explanations. This did not uphold their autonomy or dignity.

Care plans were not reflective of people’s individual preferences or aspirations, and we found little documentation or discussion about promoting independence or setting achievable goals. Some people told us they felt they had little control over their lives and routines.

We also found that there were limited opportunities for people to access the community or engage in activities that supported independent living or decision-making. Where people had the potential to do more for themselves, staff did not consistently encourage or support this in a safe or enabling way.

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.

The service did not respond promptly or effectively to people's immediate care and support needs. Some people were left waiting for assistance for extended periods, despite having requested help. One person said, “They [staff] are slow at getting to me. The buzzers go and we wait a long time.” Another person said, “You wait a long time to get the care.”

We found that changes in people’s health or emotional wellbeing were not always recognised or acted upon in a timely manner. For example, 1 person had shown signs of deteriorating health and weight over several months, but there was no evidence of action being taken. One person told us, “There are times when I’m not feeling 100% but I am just left in isolation.”

Relatives and some people living at the home told us they felt their concerns were not always taken seriously or responded to quickly. One relative told us they had raised several complaints regarding the quality of the care provided to their loved one, stating the care was ‘not good enough’ but had not received any resolution to the complaints made. The provider did not have any recorded complaints for us to review, therefore we could not be assured these were being dealt with appropriately.

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.

Several staff told us they did not feel consistently supported by the management team. Some described feeling undervalued or isolated in their roles, and said they were unsure where to turn for emotional or practical support when facing challenges at work. One staff member told us, "It just feels like we are on our own with no support.”

Staff were not aware of any formal staff wellbeing initiatives, support systems, or benefit schemes available to them. Despite mechanisms being available to promote mental health, resilience, staff recognition, and communication about existing support, this had not been promoted across the staff group in the home.

While some staff said they enjoyed aspects of their work and had good relationships with colleagues, others reported high levels of stress and a lack of opportunity to discuss concerns or reflect on their experiences in a supportive environment. Supervision and team meetings did not always provide dedicated time to explore wellbeing or workload pressures.

The lack of proactive measures to promote workforce wellbeing had impacted staff morale with nearly all staff telling us morale was low in the service.