St Mary's 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 changed to 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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion and supported them in ways that promoted dignity. People and relatives consistently described staff as caring and respectful. One person told us, “I love it and I have friends here.” A relative said, “She looks fine. The staff are all very kind towards her.” Another told us, “I would say they are very caring yes. No concerns at all.” Observations during day and evening visits showed warm interactions, with staff offering reassurance, joking appropriately with people and responding sensitively to their needs, such as assisting someone to eat yoghurt and providing friendly conversation in communal areas. Staff demonstrated awareness of people’s emotional wellbeing and engaged thoughtfully during activities and mealtimes. Healthcare professionals also highlighted respectful communication and relationship-building between people and staff.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Care planning and mental capacity processes did not consistently reflect personalised involvement or lawful decision-making. Although staff generally understood people’s needs and many people had personalised communication and PBS plans, gaps in consistent involvement and decision-making reduced the extent to which individual needs and preferences were fully recognised. These shortfalls meant the provider did not always ensure care was fully person-centred.

The provider did not always support people to have maximum independence, choice and control. While many people experienced positive outcomes, such as access to education, community activities and skill-building in enabling kitchens and laundry areas, decision-making processes were not always clearly documented. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were incomplete or incorrect for several people, including unclear authorisation around community access, absence of consultation with representatives, and inconsistencies between recorded capacity and consent given for photos or information sharing. These issues limited assurance that people consistently exercised choice and control in line with their legal rights.

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.

The provider responded to people’s immediate needs in a timely way. One person said, “I love it here. People help me because I can't walk anymore.” Relatives said staff acted quickly when people required support. Observations showed staff available across both floors, quickly responding to call bells and engaging with people who appeared withdrawn by offering reassurance, conversation and comfort.

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

The provider effectively promoted workforce wellbeing. Staff told us they felt valued, supported and listened to. Many described a strong team culture, with approachable management, open communication and opportunities to contribute ideas. Staff from several roles reported that staffing levels were adequate and that the service felt positive and well organised.