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 inadequate. 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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, and respect their privacy and dignity.

Staff were kind, caring and patient in their approach. People said they were generally treated with respect and care and supported well with their needs. One person said, “The carers are great, there is no getting away from that” and another person said, “I like it here, the carers are brilliant and look after me well”. Some people told us they had concerns about the approach of night staff, which the manager addressed promptly when we raised this.

Relatives told us staff were kind and supported their relatives appropriately and with dignity.

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.

Not all information was recorded for staff to know people’s individual strengths and needs for care and support, or understand their unique backgrounds and personalities. One person’s background information stated only ‘had a hard life’, which did not provide staff with any insight into who the person was or their life history.

Staff made sure their daily interactions with people were supportive and recognised their preferences, and they spoke with them about how they would prefer their care and support within the daily routine.

The provider 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.

Care plans were still not always reflective of people’s individual preferences or goals, and some people said they felt they had little meaningful control over their lives, particularly where they were physically dependent on staff. One person said, “I came in for respite and I am still here, they keep doing reassessments on me but no outcome and I would like to go home. I am so scared that I will never walk again” and another person said, “I would love to go out into the community more but this isn’t always possible if staff are too busy.”

People were offered choices within the structure of the day, such as how and where they wanted to spend their time. Staff supported people with options around what people wanted to wear, or have for their meals and drinks to support their choice and autonomy.

The provider did not always listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff worked hard to try to meet people’s needs and wishes in a timely way. On occasion we saw people needed to wait for support if 2 staff were needed to help them. People gave us mixed feedback about staff’s responsiveness, particularly in relation to night staff helping them to use the toilet quickly when they needed it. One person said, “I have to wait for them to come to take me to bed and I like to go about 9pm so I think they could do with a few more staff members on.” Another person said, “I get told I have to wait during the day also at times until they can get a second person to help so I do think they could do with more staff.” One relative told us staff usually attended quickly when needed, although their relative had to wait at times.

The provider did not always ensure the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff gave us mixed feedback about their well-being and support. Some staff told us the new manager had made a positive difference to staff well-being and they felt they had improved personal support, whilst other staff felt the management team did not listen or act on anything they raised. Supervision meetings were scheduled to be more frequent and team meetings were held to support staff in their work.

Staff told us they enjoyed their role and there was a happier atmosphere but some care staff felt morale was low amongst the team. Some staff felt workload pressures restricted their ability to ensure people’s needs were met quickly.

One person told us, “I don't think the staff appear to be too happy.” The manager told us they were trying to improve team morale were supportive where staff needed flexible working. They said they felt the reduction in the use of agency staff was a positive way forward in improving morale. The chef told us they had been voted for in the provider’s ‘chef of the year’ award and this had boosted their confidence and morale.