St Mary's 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 remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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.

People told us they liked the staff who supported them. One person told us, “I’ve no complaints about the staff here.” Relatives were positive about the way their family members were treated by staff. One relative said, “The staff are great, very kind to [person’s name].”

We saw many caring interactions between people and staff and found staff knew people well. People appeared comfortable and relaxed in staff’s company. One person said, “The staff have a laugh and a joke.” They added, “I've no complaints, I can't grumble at anything. They are a good bunch of [staff].” A health and social care professional who regularly visited the home told us, “Staff treat people with kindness and compassion.”

Staff spoke respectfully about the people they supported and gave examples of small acts of kindness which showed they cared about people. This included staff bringing in people’s favourite confectionary, so people knew staff had been thinking about them. We saw staff responded to people with kindness, patience and were attentive to people’s comfort. For example, by offering additional clothing or blankets to people attending appointments outside the home, so they would stay comfortable and warm.

People told us staff understood their right to dignity and privacy. One person said they felt dignity and privacy rights were met because, “[Staff] are very polite and they always knock the door before coming in.” Relatives confirmed they were able to visit their family member’s rooms, ensuring people’s privacy during their visits was respected.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People received care which recognised them as individuals and valued their abilities. Staff used their understanding of people’s care needs and preferences when responding to them. One person told us staff understood their needs and did not rush them. Another person said, “It’s quite flexible here, so I can do what I like.”

People and relatives told us there were no restrictions on visiting. One relative told us, “We just turn up, there’s no visiting restrictions.”

Most people were positive about the range of activities available in the home. One person told us, “I never get bored, there always seems enough to do.” A relative explained although their family member was unwell and spent most of their time in their room, staff still ensured they had meaningful things to occupy them. They said, “[Staff] sit and chat with them. They have their television and a paper every day.” However, some people felt there could be a broader range of activities, and they also noted external entertainers did not visit very often. An activity planner was not on display during the inspection, which may have made it harder for people to see what was available and choose activities which interested them. The registered manager told us they planned to meet with people to review the activity programme and ensure individuals had greater choice and control over their social activities.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported to make their own choices and to have control over their daily lives. One person told us staff helped them get up at a time which suited them and understood their wish to remain independent, saying, “At night I try to get myself to bed, I go when I’m ready.” Another person explained staff recognised they liked to spend time in different areas of the home and respected this. A relative also told us staff listened to their family member’s day‑to‑day preferences, such as choosing to keep their bedroom door open, and supported these choices.

Lunchtime menus were presented on the dining‑room blackboards, with 1 option listed for each course. However, people, relatives and staff told us people were not limited to just the option displayed, as alternatives were always prepared to suit people’s preferences.

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.

People told us they did not have to wait long for assistance from staff when they wanted it. One person told us, ‘I do use my call bell frequently, [staff] come quite quickly.” A relative said staff were always available to help their family member and were good at anticipating if they needed support. The relative told us staff promptly helped their family member when they wanted assistance.

Staff usually responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. We found people’s call bells were answered quickly and staff usually promptly and compassionately supported people when they were anxious. However, we observed 1 occasion where a person was calling out and did not receive support as promptly as they might have needed. We also noticed instances when staff did not immediately recognise people may require assistance.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Some staff said they were satisfied in their roles and felt they received ongoing support from leaders at the home, including regular supervision and access to mandatory training. Staff said they were supported to take time off during personal difficulties and were not pressurised to work additional shifts. All staff told us they were able to manage family commitments, and request time off when wanted. A staff member told us, “They don’t mess you about with the rota.” This helped staff to plan their own lives.

However, some staff told us they did not always feel fully valued or involved in decision making, explaining updates were often communicated by email or WhatsApp rather than through discussion. This included the introduction of CCTV in the home, which some staff said made them uncomfortable. Some staff members also reported they had not received regular 1:1 supervision meetings where they could discuss their work and personal wellbeing. However, they emphasised they would not hesitate to speak directly with the registered manager, who they said was approachable and available when needed. The registered manager assured us 1:1 supervision meetings would be implemented more consistently to better meet staff needs.