Amberley House 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 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 regulations in relation to person-centred care and governance.

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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

During the assessment, we observed staff were kind and caring. Staff spoke about people respectfully and compassionately and emphasised the importance of being kind and caring.

People and relatives were happy with the care they received. Comments included, “The staff are very nice” and “I can see [name of person] is safe and enjoying the home”.

The service used agency staff to cover vacancies and sickness. Staff told us, “Everyone works well together, our own staff and agency staff get on quite well…its 1 big family”.

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.

The provider used a digital care plan system in which staff could record people’s life history, what mattered to them and their individual needs. This was not always completed, as information about people was not always up to date or reflected the person’s current needs. For example, in the ‘life history’ section staff had recorded limited information about a person including that they, ‘can’t work due to [their] condition’. Staff had not recorded what the person had previously achieved. For other people it was recorded what their occupation had been and what they had enjoyed doing, such as, ‘former netball player’.

During the assessment we found continence products to keep pads in place were not used for individual people. We saw these ‘net pants’ were not labelled and after being washed had been stored so staff could easily access them. This meant people may have worn other people’s pants. We discussed this with the registered manager who took steps to immediately stop this practice.

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.

An activities plan was displayed on the notice board. This showed activities such as, ‘hand therapy’,‘Bingo’ and entertainment took placein the mornings. In the afternoon,‘A selection of activities for the residents by their choice with staff in the afternoon. One to onevisits’.

The registered manager told us an activities coordinator was employed4daysa week, but this member of staffwas often requiredtocover care shifts.Another staff member was employed for 7 hours of activities a week. This meant there were no activities at weekends.

A member of staff told usgroup activities were completed in the mornings. Weobservedpeople joining in,completing crossword puzzles and painting. However, these people were all in the lounge and able to complete these activities independently.Therewerelimitedactivities for most people who were in their rooms.Feedback from people and their relativeswere mixed and was dependent on how able the person was and if they were able to go to the lounge. Comments included“I see [my relative] enjoying thebingo anddoing all sorts of things from photos and newsletters”. However, 1 person’s next of kin said, “I visit 3 times a weekand have never seen anyone in the room talking to [my relative]…I feel they are getting isolated on the new wing of the home which is at a distance from the hub of most of the activities.”

People who were able to participate in activities were complimentary about the activities coordinator and told us, “I can’t praise her enough” and when the activities coordinator supported 1 person to the local shop, they felt it was, “nice to be going out and getting a few things.”

People were not offered a shower. We reviewed the care plan for 1 person which stated they, ‘enjoyed having a shower and should be offered a weekly shower.’ The daily records for a 28 day period showed the person had not been offered a shower. People told us, “I have not had a bath or shower for ages…I’m not sure when I had one last” and “I would like a bath, but at the moment I’m only having showers, I’m not sure when I had one last.”

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.

During the assessment we heard call bells constantly ringing because people had requested support. Call bells were not always responded to in a timely manner, for example, 1 person had waited 15 minutes for assistance. This meant people may have been at risk of experiencing delays in receiving assistance and care to meet their needs.

We observed staff were not always available in communal areas to provide support to people. On 1 occasion where a person was in distress, staff had not responded until an inspector intervened.

People and their relatives told us staff were generally available to support them, although there were occasions when they had to wait. One person told us the timeliness of responses to call bells, “depends how busy they are, but I’m ok with that”. People did not always receive timely staff support, particularly when staff were not present in communal areas.

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 gave mixed feedback regarding the support they received, this included, “I love it here, the nurses have supported me so much”, whilst other staff stated, “I feel I cannot do my job because I don’t have time”. Senior staff felt they lacked time to be able to focus on their administrative tasks such as care plan reviews and Medication Administration Record monitoring.

Theregularityofformalsupervisionsfor staff differed and was dependent on their role. Some staff had not received formal supervision in the 4 months prior to the assessment.

Some staff were observed taking breaks in the dining room. However, 2 members of permanent staff told us they were often unable to take breaks due to their workload.