Gainsborough 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 remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 had missed some opportunities to treat people in the most respectful and empathetic manner. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

When serving drinks we saw everyone was given their hot and cold drinks in plastic cups. Some were more specialist with 2 handles for example, however most were instead of ceramic mugs or cups and saucers. While this would have been necessary for some people, others may well prefer to drink from a ceramic cup as they no doubt would have done throughout their lives.

We saw 2 very different approaches to people when we completed lunchtime observations. A staff member placed meals in front of 2 people and walked away without a word, they did not acknowledge the people at all or say what the meal was. They offered to cut up another person’s meal who refused their assistance. A different staff member, seeing this person was struggling, sat beside them and discreetly said, ‘let’s do this together’, gently took their cutlery and assisted them to cut and eat their meal.

A relative told us, “My impression is that staff often don't know where they are. Initially [person] rarely had their own clothes on, this has improved. At times their nails need cutting and cleaning. Their hair is at times in need of a wash. [Person] is incontinent, I feel they would benefit from being changed more often or escorted to the bathroom more frequently.”

We also saw staff and people chatting and laughing and staff providing empathetic support as needed.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The provider created a list of different religious and cultural events and celebrations each month. This was to stimulate interest in others, as a means to educate people and provide interesting experiences for them and to promote respect in other cultures.

The registered manager told us most people preferred to stay in bed, or their own rooms, rather than accessing the communal areas. However care plans did not reflect people’s preferences in relation to this.

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.

There were no activities staff currently employed, and activities were provided either by care staff or through external entertainers. We saw a singer entertain people for an afternoon activity and there were at least 10 people listening and joining in. Other activities included a movie afternoon, reading, drawing, card games, and gardening. People enjoyed what was provided. A relative told us, “There are a lovely variety of activities throughout the week, musical / singing, craft and they have had visits from a care dog. Our [loved one] has enjoyed doing some gardening and has had their nails painted. There are also church services. We have been offered to join in with these or join our [loved one] for coffee and biscuits or a meal. They appear very open and accommodating.”
The registered manager told us it was difficult to justify having an activities staff member when there were only 21 people using the service, they believed there would not be enough for them to do. However, not having an activities staff member meant activities were ad hoc and opportunities to engage on a 1-to-1 basis with people who were cared for in bed or in their rooms had been missed. There were also budgetary constraints in place while the service increased occupancy meaning there was insufficient funding for an activity’s person.
The premises, when closed, had been stripped of furniture and equipment to facilitate some maintenance and refurbishment. Unfortunately displays of people enjoying previous activities enjoyed by people, and other displays of interest to people had been disposed of along with specialist items such as dementia friendly signage. The signage in the premises was minimal with fire exit routes and names and numbers on people’s doors.
There were no photos of people, current or old, displayed on doors to enable people to locate their rooms. There were no dementia friendly signs on doors for toilets, bathrooms and other communal rooms. We saw no signs to direct people to different rooms such as the lounge, dining room or sunroom, or to the lift should they wish to go upstairs. The service provided accommodation to people living with dementia, having décor and signage designed to support them may enable them to be more independent. The registered manager confirmed some of these had been in place previously however there was currently no budget in place to replace them.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

There was a call bell system in use in the service and other equipment such as pressure mats were in use should anyone be unable to use the call bell. Also, regular checks took place to ensure people were well. A relative told us, “[Person’s] needs were always promptly attended to, whether mental or physical [needs]. [Person] wasn't capable of using the bell system due to their dementia, but from what I could observe, the staff always responded promptly to other residents who did use it.”
One relative was not happy with staff responses telling us, “I feel the staff response to residents’ needs is inconsistent, some are responsive and intuitive, others seem lack lustre.”
A third relative was also positive telling us, “Support is always provided when needed and call bells appear to be dealt with in a timely manner."

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The provider had been very supportive of staff during the events leading up to the service’s temporary closure and re-opening.
There was an appraisal process in place that had been designed so both the provider and the staff member could participate in a process that would both improve the quality of services delivered to people, and staff members satisfaction in their work. Staff and line managers would identify learning needs and appropriate training to meet these needs.
The provider had a whistle-blowing policy and procedure. This encouraged staff to come forwards should they observe serious misconduct in services or by colleagues. The policy stated staff would be protected from detrimental treatment in such circumstances.