Surrey Heights

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.
 

This service scored 60 (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.
Throughout the inspection we observed staff being kind and caring in their interactions with people. Staff were observed checking residents were happy with their meals and used show plates of meals to support people with making mealtime choices in a caring and patient manner. We observed staff were attentive to the needs of people who were anxious. People and relatives told us “Staff were kind and caring”. We observed people’s privacy was respected, and staff knocked on their bedroom doors before entering.
The activities team told us examples about how people were supported with activities and events which mattered to them, their culture and their preferences to ensure people’s individuality and what mattered to them was celebrated. For example, one resident’s favourite football club was contacted by the activities staff to arrange for a signed shirt to be sent for the resident’s 100th birthday.

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.
We observed activities in the service had been adapted to suit the needs of individual residents. Care plans contained some details of people’s likes, dislikes and preferred daily routines. The service was also visited by the church to support people and their individual cultural needs.
However, staff were frequently finding they were task-oriented, leaving little time for them to personalise care for people. A staff member told us “We don’t sit with people like before, there isn’t time.” We asked some staff about people’s backgrounds, histories and hobbies. Some staff were unable to provide specific details and information which could be used to support people more effectively, and ensure people were treated as individuals according to their needs and preferences.

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.
People’s choices weren’t always respected. One person was vegetarian, and their care plan stated being offered meat would cause them to become upset. We found this person was given beef for their supper meal; this was made as an ‘assisted choice’ rather than independently. The provider did not evidence people’s choices were protected and promoted.
We requested feedback from partnership agencies regarding the care and support people received. Partnership services told us people’s meal sittings would be dependent on their level of need for support with eating. This did not demonstrate inclusivity, choice and control for people over their own dining experiences was promoted and implemented.
Furthermore, we reviewed people’s care plans and found people were not always supported to maintain independence, choice and control. For example, one person’s care plan stated, “staff are to remove [person] from the lounge back to [their] room if [they] get too disruptive.” This did not clearly demonstrate how staff would ensure people were always supported to have choices, control and independence whilst mitigating the risk of isolation.
We observed people were able to freely move around the home and participate in activities provided. People told us if they had a worry they would speak with staff.

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.
Staff did not demonstrate how they were able to minimise discomfort to some people’s immediate needs. Staff also told us there were “more than 5 people” needing support with eating, and “People have to wait” due to staffing numbers, and “we could do with more staff in the morning and at lunchtime.” This did not ensure people’s immediate needs could always be met.
We observed one person was woken by staff and given a hot drink. Staff did not ensure they stayed with the person to support them. We observed this person tried to stand up and became unsteady, at the same time picking up their hot drink. We requested support from staff, and they attended to the person immediately.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.
Staff told us they felt the service was a good place to work. One staff said, "It is a nice place to work; we get to know residents and enjoy this role." The registered manager told us they encouraged staff to take time off, and they were well supported by their regional manager. A dependency tool was in place to help calculate staffing requirements, and staff were able to raise any concerns at staff meetings.