St Georges 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 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, privacy and dignity, however on some occasions improvements could be made to supporting people with an improved compassionate approach. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

For example, staff gave examples of closing curtains, doors and covering people with towels to protect their dignity. People told us, “They are all very kind and very good.” Another person told us, “The staff are very, very nice.” However, we had received some mixed feedback where people and relatives felt the standard of care was not always of a good standard. They raised there had been occasions when staff had not supported the person respectfully. We raised this with the registered manager, so they were aware of this feedback.

Although staff gave examples of treating people with kindness. We observed on 1 occasion where the interaction with 1 person could have been more compassionate. After raising this with the registered manager they confirmed they were liaising with the person to resolve this with them.

The provider treated people as individuals. However, improvements were needed to people’s care, support and treatment to ensure it met their individual needs. Staff took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, and preferences. However, people’s care plans had not explored if they had a cultural, sexual or protected characteristic.

People’s care plans contained important information such as people’s likes and dislikes and any hobbies and interests. Staff we spoke with were familiar with how to support people with their individual needs and wishes. However, we found improvements could be made to exploring if people had a protected characteristic or cultural need. Staff were able to provide examples of how they supported people with their culture and preferred language. For example, 1 member of staff gave an example of how they had communicated with the person in their preferred language when they had needed some additional information about their care and support. The regional director confirmed they were planning a training session to explore the diversity of supporting people and staff with their individual needs and preferences at the service.

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

Staff provided people with care that promoted their independence and staff provided choice and control over their care and support needs. For example, staff gave people choice on how they wanted their care needs met. Including, what meal and drink they wanted and if they were able to complete certain aspects of their care themselves.

The provider did not always have systems and suitable staffing in place to respond to people’s needs in the moment or when needed to act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The registered manager and deputy held daily meetings with nursing staff so any changes to people’s individual health needs could be reviewed. However, we found not all individual changes to people’s needs were being raised when required and on occasions we found staff were not always available to support people when they needed it. We raised this during our inspection so the registered manager and provider’s senior management team could review how they respond to people’s individual needs.

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

The service employed staff in different roles. Domestic, kitchen and maintenance teams worked alongside nurses and carers. The provider had an employee assistance scheme for staff to access. The registered manager recognised staff through an employee awards scheme. Staff were encouraged to feedback to the management team about staff who had demonstrated working in line with the provider’s values. Staff received a handbook when they started in their roles which shared information about support available to them to promote their wellbeing.

Staff we spoke with had mixed feedback on how they felt supported by the management of the service. Not all staff felt able to raise concerns with the management. One member of staff felt they were unable to raise concerns with all members of the management team within the service. The provider had completed an employee feedback session where staff had the opportunity to share areas which were working well and where they could raise any concerns they had. An action plan had been created from the results for the management team of the service to work towards.