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

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations in relation to treating people with dignity and respect.
 

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect at all times. Whilst we observed some positive interactions during the inspection, people’s care plans and incident reports evidenced a lack of dignity and respect in describing people’s needs and how people communicated when experiencing distress. For example, terms such as “severe behaviours”, “stomping”, “refusing to cooperate”, “controlling and demanding behaviours”, “[Person] trying to control the narrative” and “[Person] will try to manipulate you.”

This language did not demonstrate a caring and compassionate approach to understanding what the person was experiencing or what they were communicating.

We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives about whether staff were always kind, caring and respectful when supporting people. Whilst some identified the supportive relationships people had built with staff, others identified concerns around staff not always listening to people or responding appropriately.
 

The provider had not always ensured people were treated as individuals. People’s care plans did not fully take account of their abilities, aspirations, unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. They did not provide sufficient guidance for staff about people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs to ensure their care and support was tailored to their individual needs and preferences.

Despite the concerns with documentation, we received some positive feedback from people’s relatives regarding staff’s understanding of people’s individual needs. Comments included, “Staff understand [person] well” and “Staff can read [person’s] body language and facial expressions and demeanour very well.”
 

The provider did not always promote people’s choice and control over their own care. People’s care plans did not provide staff with sufficient guidance about how to maintain people’s independence or how to promote their choice and control where possible.

The provider did not have a robust process in place to empower people to have their say about things that were important to them. The provider was not able to evidence that people and those important to them were regularly asked for their feedback.

People’s relatives told us they were not always asked for their feedback. However, we received positive comments about the way family relationships were supported, with relatives telling us they were able to visit people regularly and without restrictions.
 

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. The provider was not able to evidence how people’s views about their care were considered and documented.

Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives about whether all staff, including those who did not work regularly with people, understood how to meet their immediate needs in order reduce potential distress.
 

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff told us they felt valued and supported by management and said the new manager had improved team morale and enabled them to develop in their roles. Comments included, “I feel supported by the management team. They are approachable, listen to concerns, and are visible in the service” and “They provide guidance, encouragement, clear communication and also the opportunity for further training.”