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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Interactions between staff and people using the service were respectful and considerate, and we observed care being delivered in a manner that upheld people’s dignity and promoted positive relationships.

Overall, the culture within the service had improved, and there was evidence of a caring and compassionate staff team who understood the importance of respectful care. People and their relatives spoke positively about staff and their approach, describing them as kind and respectful. One person told us, “They always knock, and use my name. They are respectful.” A relative reflected on the staff team, saying, “Baylham have some excellent caring staff who have been there a long time and are amazing. They are brilliant at their job and very caring. They know the individual needs of each resident. A few are still learning.”

Another relative highlighted the emotional support and reassurance they received during a difficult time, telling us, “I can honestly say Baylham carers and nurses looked after [family member] so well. I received update phone calls and on visits a friendly arm round my shoulders.” This feedback demonstrated that staff recognised the importance of supporting not only people living at the service, but also those close to them too.

Staff also spoke positively about the care they delivered. One staff member told us, “All of [people] are treated equally regardless of their mental health conditions I have seen staff treat [people] very nicely and compassionately as well. I’ve seen that [people] are happy and well looked after.”

Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s strengths and abilities; however, we found evidence of a task‑led culture where care delivery was largely organised around routines and schedules rather than people’s individual preferences and needs. People were often supported with personal care at set times that suited staff, which meant opportunities to tailor support to individual choice or daily wishes were sometimes missed.

Some people’s bedrooms were personalised with photographs, personal items and decorations that reflected their interests and personalities, supporting their sense of identity and belonging. However, we observed that other bedrooms appeared sparse, with limited personal belongings or visual reminders of people’s lives or interests. The manager told us this was where people had no immediate relatives to provide belongings. This meant there were inconsistencies in how people’s individuality was reflected in their personal living spaces.

We also observed staff interacting with people in a kind and patient manner. Staff took time to ask people how they were feeling, acknowledged them by name, and engaged in conversations. People were supported to mark significant occasions such as special wedding anniversaries with their relatives and friends which helped foster a homely and inclusive environment. One person told us, “I feel settled I can speak to them if I am worried or in pain.” A member of staff confirmed this saying, “I think people do have choices on their care, offered different meals, can choose to get up/stay in bed etc, up to the [person]. I believe staff work hard to give [people] what they would like.”

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

We observed staff encouraging people to make decisions about day‑to‑day aspects of their care, and interactions demonstrated that staff were aware of people’s preferences and respected their autonomy wherever possible.

Relatives told us they were able to visit the service at any time, which supported people’s relationships. During the inspection, we observed visitors being warmly welcomed into the service and invited to spend time with people in shared areas, such as the lounge. Interactions between staff and people using the service were kind reflecting positive relationships. Staff addressed people by their preferred names and communicated with them appropriately, demonstrating familiarity and understanding. Staff were respectful in their interactions and maintained this respect when speaking about people they supported. A member of staff told us, “[People] are consistently treated with kindness, dignity, and respect. All staff speak politely, maintain privacy during personal care, and ensure [people] feel comfortable and valued.”

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. Staff were busy and at times task focussed. This meant they were not always available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner and according to their preferences.

Although some care interactions were observed to be more task‑orientated at times, which limited opportunities for more personalised engagement, this was acknowledged by the manager during the inspection. When raised, the manager confirmed that this had already been identified as an area for improvement and was included within the service’s improvement plan, indicating an awareness of the need to move away from staff routine‑led care.

Relatives raised concerns about limited access to meaningful activities and opportunities for people to spend time outdoors. One relative told us, “Would like to see staff get people out into the fresh air into the garden; manager trying very hard and made a good start.” Further feedback highlighted a lack of activities and opportunities for social engagement, particularly for people who spent more time in their bedrooms. One relative told us, “If I’m completely honest, I don’t see many activities take place, since starting I haven’t seen any [people] be taken into the garden or leave the care home to go on days out.” Another relative told us, “Unfortunately we have had no trips out to the local area in the last year. Management are trying to arrange trips, but it is disappointing to have been so long without any.”

Feedback from staff about the support they received from the manager and provider, and the approach taken to staff welfare and well-being, was mixed. Some staff told us their requests for support within the workplace, had not always been acknowledged or acted upon, and that they had instead relied on colleagues for support. Others described the manager as being abrupt at times and dismissive when approached for help. One staff member said, “Morale is now very low within the care section of the home, staff starting to mistrust each other as gossip within the home has caused breakdown within the staff. Carers who worked together before are now separated and do feel isolated at times.” Another member of staff commented, “Although staff work well together and are committed to providing good care, the manager’s behaviour is creating a stressful and unsafe environment. There is a strong focus on profit rather than the well-being of [people] and staff, and staff are often treated in a disrespectful and intimidating manner.”

However, we also received some positive feedback. One staff member told us, “Yes, I feel valued because managers and colleagues are approachable, supportive, and appreciative of the work we do. The new manger is very good… a lot of staff members left because of the previous manager, but this new manager is very good and supportive.”

The manager was working hard to make improvements at the service and was aware that there were challenges in this process. There was also a deputy manager due to commence employment at the service to share the oversight and leadership support to staff.