Yarborough House RCH

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 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 and their relatives provided positive feedback about staff. A relative said, “I have no concerns and nothing but praise for the staff who are nothing but thoughtful, considerate and loving.” However, staff were often too busy to talk to people and show genuine interest in them. One person said, “Everyone is so busy, I know that, but a little chat would be nice.” We saw some staff often walked by people without talking to or engaging with them which did not demonstrate kindness, empathy or respect.

Staff respected people’s privacy. When speaking with staff, they gave clear examples of how they maintained people’s privacy and dignity.

The running of the service did not always ensure people were treated as individuals or ensure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

There was a lack of activities and social stimulation for people. People said, “We chat to each other, but we do get fed up” and “It would be nice to have more to do as I do not like to watch TV all day, but the staff are very busy.” During the visit the only activities available for people was the TV, the radio and some colouring in. Planned activities which were not held did not appear to be tailored to people’s preferences.

Interactions with people were often task based as there were not enough staff. Staff told us they had to prioritise people’s needs, and they couldn’t spend quality time with people. Staff told us how they provided care for people. Though it was unclear if this was in line with people’s preferences, as care plans lacked detailed guidance.

People had limited choice and control over their lives. Activities were not often held and were not offered to people during the visit. We saw people were offered a choice of meals and drinks, but these were not always offered in a way people could understand. For example, some people had cognitive and communication difficulties and may not understand which options were available as visual options were not given. We raised this with the provider who following the assessment told us they would introduce show plates to help people understand the options available.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care. Staff told us how they sought people’s consent and respected their right to refuse support. A relative said “Staff always ask before delivering any care, they are very polite.”

Staff supported people to maintain their independence. We saw staff encouraging people to mobilise as part of their care and to help maintain their independence.

People were supported to maintain relationships with their loved ones. Visitors were welcomed and people could have private meetings and meals with their friends and relatives.

Staff were not always able to respond to people’s needs in the moment to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Staff responded promptly to emergency call bells and worked hard to meet people’s needs. Though, they told us it was difficult to meet people’s needs at times due to staffing levels.

Some people demonstrated their needs through their behaviours which at times could challenge others. Where these behaviours could pose a risk to themselves or others, medicines had been prescribed. The use of these medicines varied depending on people’s needs. Staff told us they were concerned about keeping people safe at these times as they were often busy, and communal areas were often unstaffed.

The wellbeing of staff and their ability to provide good-quality, person-centred care was not always appropriately managed. Staff told us the management team had changed their shifts and working patterns to allow for better work/life balance and so they could meet personal commitments within their families. However, they told us although they tried their best for people, at times they went home feeling like care they provided had been rushed and they were left feeling run down. Staff received regular supervision and could access the management team when needed for support and worked closely as a team.