Rowan Garth 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion but the care provided did not always promote dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People told us the care staff were kind, caring and respectful. Their comments included, “Very kind”; “Everyone is kind and considerate”; Staff are lovely”; “The girls are all very nice” and “Staff are all very kind”.

People told us staff supported their ability to do things for themselves where they were able, for example to wash and dress. People and their relatives told us they were supported appropriately with personal care to maintain their dignity. However, records showed that some people’s continence care failed to ensure their dignity was respected. Records showed some people were found wet through on multiple occasions.

People’s care did not take account of their strength’s abilities, aspirations, culture, unique backgrounds and protected characteristic. The provider did not ensure the delivery of people’s care, support and treatment always met their needs.

People’s care plans contained contradictory information about them and did not have accurate or consistent information about their individual needs, risks, strengths and abilities to help staff provide personalised care. For example, one person’s care plan gave conflicting information on their ability to complete daily living activities such as washing and dressing, continence care, the level of support needed to stand and walk, ability to use their call bell, hearing, eyesight, skin integrity and their ability to communicate. Their care plan contained little information about their preferred daily routines, preferences and wishes.

Records showed gaps in the care some people received. Some people’s care had not been planned appropriately to ensure staff were aware of their needs and the care they required. There was a lack of provider and managerial oversight on the quality and safety of the care people received, which meant the provider and manager were not always aware of if people’s care, support and treatment was meeting their needs.

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 had difficulty communicating their needs and wishes verbally. Suitable communication tools were not always used or in place to enable them to express their needs in an alternative way.

Information on what tasks or activities people could do independently and what they needed help with was contradictory. Information about their ability to make decisions was also not clear. These shortfalls increased the risk of people receiving inappropriate or unsafe care which did not promote independence, choice and control over their own care.

Some decisions in relation to people’s care had been made without consideration of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 or Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding legislation in order to ensure people’s rights were protected.

The provider did not 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.

People’s individual needs and wishes in respect of their health conditions and clinical risks were not adequately assessed or managed by staff. This increased the risk of these conditions not being fully understood or responded to appropriately to mitigate the risk of discomfort and distress.

People’s day to day needs were not always responded to at the right times for example, records showed people who required support to reposition were not always provided with this support at the right frequency. People sometimes went significant periods of time between continence checks which exposed some people to the distress and discomfort of being wet through.

Some people did not have a call bell accessible to them when they were in bed or sat out on a chair. This impacted on their ability to call for help with they needed support or in the event of an emergency.

People told us staff did their best to support and look after them. Staff knew what immediate action to take in the event of a fall including when to seek emergency medical attention. We observed a staff member supporting a person who had become worried in a calm patient manner, reassuring the person to alleviate their concerns. People told us staff did their best to support them.

The provider did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. They did not always ensure the systems in place to support staff wellbeing were fully utilised.

There were some of the systems in place to enable staff to provide feedback on any barriers that impacted on their well-being and prevented them from delivering person- centred care. These systems however were not used effectively. For example, staff did not always have regular supervision sessions with their manager to enable to them to discuss their job role and workload. An annual appraisal of staff skills and abilities did not always take place to promote staff development and enablement.

Staff meetings took place but the frequency of these was not clearly defined. In the 6 months prior to our assessment, only one staff meeting in each unit had taken place.

Whilst some staff felt supported, others felt staffing levels and workload impacted on their well- being and the care provided.

The provider had a staff wellbeing and mental health policy in place.