Baylham 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation dignity and respect.

This service scored 40 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Some improvements were required in how people were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion and respect for their privacy and dignity.

Language used and staff actions were not always caring and respectful. During lunch on the first day of our inspection, we observed some people had a poor mealtime experience. Two people were sitting in the lounge area and left with their meal in front of them. Neither ate their meal, both falling asleep. Staff returned and removed the meal but didn’t offer either person anything alternative to eat or any encouragement.

We observed a person sobbing, crying into their hands loudly. Two members of staff in the room completely ignored the persons’ cries. An inspector went to the person and called staff over and asked why they did not make any attempts to comfort them. One of the staff said, “Oh [person] does that all of the time. They will have 1 :1 arrive at 10pm who will look after them.” A member of the night staff later provided reassurance and care which calmed the person.

We found a person coming out of their room with soiled wet clothing on so inspectors attempted to alert staff, however, no one responded to the call bell. The Inspector had to search for a member of staff to support the person. Some people had a preference for female staff to provide their personal care; however, staff told us no female staff were allocated to that unit, on the day of our visit, only male staff were deployed on the unit.

People’s right to privacy was not well respected. We observed people going in and out of other people’s rooms on multiple occasions. Staff did not always notice and react when this happened. We observed how one person was accompanied back to their room after lunch and found another person in their bed.There was a lack of signage on the unit supporting people living with dementia to aid their orientation around the building and enable them to locate their rooms.

We saw some staff who were observed to be kind in their interactions with people but the language they used did not always support people’s dignity and was not enabling. We also received positive feedback about the caring practice of some staff. One relative told us, “People and their relatives spoke fondly of the permanent staff and regular agency staff who knew them well. One relative said, “One carer in particular I have known [length of time). [Carer] really cares about [family member], they shared jokes in the beginning when [family member] was able to talk and I often heard them giggling. But now as [family member’s] dementia has progressed [staff member] is kind and considerate, including a hug for me when [family member] has been ill.” Another relative said, “The staff on the whole are very kind and caring.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. Whilst each person had their own care plan, we found care plans were not reflective of people’s current needs. For example, care plans needed updating to fully reflect the individuals specific care needs. The provider told us they were in the process of updating all people’s care plans.

There was a lack of person-centred care and individualised approach at the service. Language used did not demonstrate value placed on people as an individual and undermined their identity. For example, staff referred to people who required assistance with eating as “feeds.” We also observed people being referred to as room numbers during staff conversations with each other.

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. Staff told us that people were not always free to leave their bedroom if staff were unable to safely manage their distress. The provider told us that none of the evidence or feedback they had received suggested that this practice was being used as an inappropriate way to manage behaviour.

Some people had the opportunity to participate in activities, particularly those who did not have complex needs. However, there was a lack of opportunity for many people to have purpose in their day. We saw people sitting at a table with colouring books in front of them, but no colouring pencils/pens were provided despite this being raised with staff as needed. Staff recorded in daily care notes that people enjoyed this activity, when they had not been able to participate.

A member of staff told us, “[People] often request trips out, but bus problems prevent this. We have had many issues with activity supplies, but recently, things are improving. There is always a shortage of staff for activities. Management always expects group activities, but our focus should be on every person not just some. Unfortunately, due to staff shortages, one-on-one time with people [cared for in bed] is not always possible.”

A person told us they liked to go out into the garden but couldn’t as the door was kept locked. We observed the ground floor had an enclosed garden area that was easily accessible to people and their visitors, however despite being a warm and sunny day, the doors remained locked shut. This meant there were not opportunities for people to freely access a safe outdoor space.

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.

We observed, where they were able to use one, people did not always have a working call bell if they needed help. One person who was in their bedroom upper floor pressed a doorbell that had been installed; however, no staff member came to assist the person. A manager told us this person should use their mobile phone to telephone the care home if they needed staff assistance. Three staff members told us 15 minute routine checks were already in place to check on people who did not have access to a call bell, however, no records could be found to evidence this. A manager later told us this was incorrect, and this process was not in place.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.