Amberley 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Systems to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to people, including risks associated with the environment and support planning were not always effective and did not always demonstrate a caring approach. Audits were not effective and had not enabled the provider to identify and address the significant concerns we found during this assessment. Staff had not always been provided with clear guidance on how to safely meet people's individual needs. This meant people were not always cared for in a safe way.

We observed positive interactions between people and staff. One person told us, “The staff are a lovely bunch we have a laugh and they are so kind to me.” Another person told us, “I like the staff they always try and do their best and always happy to have a natter.” When people became upset, we observed staff showed compassion and they tried to provide emotional support and reassurance.

Relatives told us they thought staff were kind and caring. One relative told us, “They are kind, caring and are approachable.” Another relative said, “The staff work hard and are decent people. They are kind, friendly and respectful.”

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 had not considered people’s needs in respect of the environment. Some people lived with dementia, but best practice guidance for creating a suitable environment for people had not been considered. This included guidance on signage, lighting, individualised doors and decoration.

People told us their individual needs were met and respected. However, people and their relative’s shared feedback about the lack of meaningful activities. One person said, “It’s boring here we don’t do much.” A relative told us, “I don’t see many activities or stimulation going on.” Although we observed some short activities being provided on 1 of the days of our inspection, these were not tailored to people’s needs who lived with dementia. We did not see any other planned activities. We asked if there was an activities schedule in place and was told there wasn’t. We did see some planned events for the week leading up Christmas such as school children visiting to sing carols, and a Christmas party.

There was little evidence of activities provided to people who were cared for or chose to remain in their room. This meant, at times, people were not engaged in meaningful activities for long periods of time and were just sat in their rooms or in communal areas without any stimulation other than the television.

We spoke with some people who were able to go out independently and they told us about the variety of places they visited.

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.

Some people were not consistently consulted to make decisions about their care. For example, by being involved in their care plan reviews and being consulted about equipment which could be used to promote their safety. Some people’s care plans provided limited information about their preferences, hobbies, and routines to enable staff to promote these.

People and relatives told us staff did encourage them to maintain their independence during personal care and choices were offered. One person said, “The staff encourage me to wash and dress myself and do the bits for myself that I can manage.” We observed people choose where they would like to sit both in the lounge and when going into the dining room. People could remain in the lounge to eat their meal if they wished. Some people were asked what TV programmes or films they would like to watch.

Some people were independent in their personal care tasks, and in accessing the community and this was promoted. We saw these people accessed the garden areas when they wanted to and popped out when they wanted to go to the shop or to the pub. Despite the lack of records 1 person’s independence and choice was promoted and they were able to administer their own medicines.

Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told us and we saw staff did respond to their needs in a timely manner. One person said, “Staff are very supportive and do always come when I need them.” A relative said, “Staff are responsive when [person] is unwell or is upset. They try their best to reassure [person]”. We did see many efforts where staff tried their best to reassure a person when they became anxious and distressed. If people called upon staff, we saw staff tried their best to respond even if this was to advise people, if they were busy supporting someone else and they would return. We observed staff provide tactile support such as holding people’s hands, dancing and sharing a hug when initiated by people. Staff took time when requested to sit and chat with people. Staff were able to understand people’s needs and wants for those people who were not always able to communicate verbally. Staff used handover systems to share any concerns about people’s needs.

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.

Although staff tried their best they were not always supported effectively by the provider to provide person centred support due to the lack of effective systems and oversight in place. Due to some uncertainty in relation to the position of the provider, staff told us morale had been low. The staff told us they supported each other and felt valued and supported by the registered manager. The team leader had created a vision board in the staff office which contained positive affirmations for staff to read.

There was limited evidence provided to us to support regular staff meetings were completed. However, staff told us they had informal meetings to discuss any issues when needed. Staff told us they enjoyed their role and wanted to do their best to make sure people received good care.