Home of Comfort Nursing 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.

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 observed staff treating people kindly; however, staff were busy and the care provided was largely task-focused, with limited meaningful interaction. This meant people had fewer opportunities for social engagement and personalised support, which may impact their overall wellbeing.

While most people and relatives described staff as kind and caring with feedback that included “The staff are very caring and considerate” and “Staff are good. They help me”, our observations highlighted some inconsistencies in practice. For example, we heard staff calling out to colleagues about a person’s care needs and staff talking about people in front of others meaning sensitive information could be overheard and compromising the person’s privacy and dignity. Following the inspection, the registered manager told us of how they made some improvements to privacy and dignity.

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.

People’s individual characteristics were recorded in their care plans, but people and some staff told us they did not always have the time to take these into consideration when delivering care.

Processes such as ‘resident of the day’, activity reviews and ‘meaningful moments’ were used to ensure people’s wellbeing. However, although a range of activities were provided, people told us they did not always meet their needs. Comments included, “I’m not keen on the activities”, “Sometimes they get a bit boring” and “I haven’t been outside this door for [9 months]. I’d love to go out.” When we observed an activity taking place, we saw people were not engaged. This increased the risk of people’s wellbeing declining.

In addition, records did not demonstrate the social needs of people who remained in their rooms were being met. For example, for 2 people, care plans outlined the support required to promote wellbeing and social engagement; however, records showed this guidance had not been followed. There was also an overall lack of engagement recorded for these people which increased the risk of isolation. Following the inspection, the registered manager told us of their plans to improve activities for people.

People were positive about how their religious needs were met. For example, 1 person told us, “They have communion here. They have an altar.” Staff explained how they met the differing religious and cultural needs of people in the service.

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.

The registered manager told us people had choices about how they spent their day and records evidenced this in some cases. However, we saw that surveys showed some people said they did not always get to choose when they got up, when they went to bed and what they wore. At the time of the inspection, this had not been addressed but the registered manager assured us they would take action to make improvements for people.

The registered manager confirmed all people were checked on hourly to promote safety. However, this decision was not personalised to people’s individuals needs and there was a lack of consideration for those who may require more checks or who did not want to be checked on hourly.

Records showed that people generally had a bath or shower once a week. Although the registered manager and some staff told us people could have more if they wanted to, this was not the feedback we received from people. For example, 1 person told us, “I’d like to have more showers. I have 1 on a [weekday], only on a [weekday]. They [staff] say everyone’s got to take their turn. When I [was unable to get to the toilet in time] I would have liked to get into the shower.”

People told us the food was good although some said some meals were often similar. Comments included, “It’s pretty good, but it gets a bit monotonous.”, “They [staff] do the same things 2 or 3 times a week and you get fed up with it. They have shepherd’s pie and cottage pie all the time.” and a third said, “It’s always sausages or mince and I’m not a meat person.”

The registered manager told us there were no restrictions on people having visitors to the home, however 1 person and 1 relative told us of times they had been asked to avoid. For example, a relative said, “I avoid mealtimes because they [staff] like to have the mealtimes free.” The above examples demonstrate people were not always supported to make choices about their daily life.

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.

As outlined in the safe section of this report under ‘staffing’ there wasn’t always enough staff to promptly respond to people’s needs. One person told us, “You have to wait for the bedpan or the commode. I have to wait for the hoist, if someone else is using it, you have to wait.” Following the inspection, the registered manager told us of how they made some improvements to respond to people’s immediate needs.

During this assessment, we recognised staff were doing their best with the resources available to them.

The provider had some measures in place that promoted the wellbeing of their staff, but this did not always enable staff to provide person-centred care.

The registered manager told us they had initiatives to support staff wellbeing. This included a wellbeing champion and mental health first aider. They also had a ‘Carer of the year’ scheme, long service awards and brought in treats for the staff to thank them for their work. Most staff told us they felt supported in their roles and received regular supervisions. However, some staff said the staffing arrangements impacted on the personalised support they were able to offer people which negatively impacted their wellbeing.