Romney House

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 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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

There was some mixed and negative feedback about the staff. This included, “Some [carers] especially in the night are not that nice” and “The staff are lovely here, very friendly but I wouldn’t cross them.” A relative told us their family member got on well and liked the staff, but there were a couple who caused them concern. We discussed this with leaders, who were concerned and told us they would investigate the attitude and culture of the staff team.

Other comments about staff were more positive and included, “They are kind and have a good sense of humour, we have a laugh” and “The girls [carers] are alright, the staff are lovely here.”

People’s privacy and dignity was respected. We observed staff generally knocked on people’s doors before entering and addressed individuals by their first name. One person told us, “They are good at making sure they treat me with dignity when they are caring or bathing me.” Relatives confirmed staff responded to their family member positively. One relative told us, “[Family member] is absolutely treated with dignity. If he wants privacy or company, he gets whatever he wants.”

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.

There was a consistent staff team who knew people well. They promoted people’s individual preferences including going out and following preferred religious preferences. One person confirmed this by saying they used technology to attend church services and enjoyed meeting the visiting clergy. Another person was supported to continue their interest of gardening. Raised beds were being developed to enable the person to grow vegetables. Another person with a gardening interest told us they often took their secateurs into the garden to help shape the shrubs.

Leaders told us the size of the home enabled a personalised service. This included adding people’s favourite foods to the weekly food order.

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

People told us they had choice over their lives and their independence was promoted. They said they could get up and go to bed as they pleased and could spend time in their room or go to the lounge with others. People told us they could ask if they wanted a bath or a shower. One person told us, a soak in a hot bubble bath was important to them, and the same member of staff usually assisted them. People told us their preferred gender of staff supporting them was respected.

Relatives confirmed their family member’s rights to choice and independence were promoted. One relative told us, “One day they didn’t want to eat their meal in their room or in the dining room, so they brought it to the lounge where they ate it.”

Staff told us they promoted people’s independence. They said this included enabling people to do as much as they could for themselves and make decisions. This included what to eat and what to wear.

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.

One person raised concern about a staff member not undertaking an aspect of their care as requested. This was demonstrated within the person’s daily care records. Leaders had not identified the incident but were concerned it had occurred. They said they would speak to the member of staff and take any required action.

Staff told us another person could become distressed, particularly later in the day and at night. Their care plan identified this, but the information did not provide staff with clear guidance about supporting them effectively. The terminology used did not promote the person’s dignity and showed staff’s lack of knowledge regarding the person’s condition. Leaders recognised this and said it could have been written in a better way. They said they would address this.

During the inspection, call bells were answered in a timely manner, and people were supported with what they needed.

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

Leaders told us they had a good team with most having worked at the service for many years. They said they cared about staff, and adjusted work patterns in response to any health concerns or circumstances such as bereavement. One staff member confirmed leaders were happy for them to change their shifts if they arranged cover. They said it was more difficult to do this, if other staff were not available. However, 2 staff told us leaders could be more empathetic, and some staff were treated more favourably than others.

Leaders told us they were an integral part of the working rota so regularly supported people with their personal care. They worked alongside staff and took part in handovers at the start of the shift. This ensured staff were up to date with key events and people’s changing needs.