Glenkindie Lodge Residential 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

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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to treating people with kindness, compassion and dignity.

This service scored 50 (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.

We found that kindness and dignity were not consistently upheld by the provider or staff.

We observed some kind and compassionate interactions between staff and people; however, we also observed interactions that did not reflect these values.

Additionally, we observed staff not protecting people’s dignity whilst supporting them with personal care tasks. For example, we found staff regularly announced within communal areas, in front of other people, relatives and external visitors, when they were supporting someone to access the toilet, or attend to their incontinence needs.

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.

Some people’s care plans reflected some of their individual wishes and preferences, but most of them didn’t. Care plans were often generic, with insufficient reflection of the person themselves.

Additionally, through observations, we found that most people followed the same structure and routine, to be within communal areas throughout the day. Some people who were dependent on staff to mobilise, were observed sitting at dining tables from the time they had breakfast, until after lunch. When asked if this was their preference, one person said “no, but what else is there to do?”

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.

We found that people were not always given choice, particularly around day-to-day decisions. People’s choices and preferences were not reflected within their care plans, and through observations we found staff would not always support and enable people to make their own choices. For example, during lunchtime service observations, staff were making decisions for some people around food choices and not involving the person.

We did observe some good examples of supporting people to gain or maintain their independence. For example, one person who needed assistance with eating their meal, was encouraged at first to try themselves, and staff would only support when the task became difficult for them.

The provider did not always listen to and 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.

The provider had a call bell system, which meant people could alert staff that they needed help whilst in their bedrooms. We found that these were responded to quickly.

Within communal areas, there was lack of staff supervision, and some people were unable to request help or alert staff to their needs, through their own means. There was no system in place within the communal areas for people to get staff’s attention when in need.

Relatives told us that the staff always seemed to busy and were unable to spend quality time with people. One relative told us, “They are lovely staff but rushed of a weekend, it takes 3-4 rings of the [call] bell.”

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 they did not feel supported. They reported that training was “basic” and did not always give them the skills they needed to do a good job.

Additionally, staff told us they didn’t feel listened to or valued. One staff member told us, “Sometimes we can’t even take breaks, as there is not enough time and we are doing back-to-back tasks all the time.”