Chaucer 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 changed to inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s dignity and respect.

This service scored 30 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

People’s privacy was not respected and upheld. Some people experienced people entering their rooms when they were receiving personal care which was not dignified. People’s dignity was not upheld.

People were not always supported in a kind or compassionate way. People we spoke with shared that some staff were ‘rough’ with them when delivering their continence care. One person told us ‘I’m not keen on some of them [staff], they are rough with continence care. It can be often, it might be ok for a few weeks.’ Another person told us, ‘With personal care, some of the night staff aren’t great, I would give them 3 out of 10. Day staff I would give 9 out of 10. Night staff can be rude.’

People did not always receive the support they needed during mealtimes, which left them in an undignified situation. For example, two people had finished eating, but this was not noticed by staff. The people continued to lift their empty forks to their mouths without staff noting they had no food left on their plate. When staff did approach them, staff removed their plates and brought dessert without discussion if they had eaten sufficient amounts. During lunch we observed staff talking over people and supporting them to eat with little interactions.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

During lunch we observed staff to speak over people, and about them without speaking to them directly. For example, staff asked another staff member what a person wanted for lunch instead of approaching the person individually.

However, we also observed in a different area of the home staff dancing, singing and interreacting positively with people.Staff told us, "It makes people happy [to dance and sing with them]."

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People were not always supported to have full independence, choice and control.

People's consent to decisions had not always been sought, and relevant processes followed when they lacked capacity. During lunch we observed one person sleeping. Staff approached the person without speaking with them, and applied their glasses.

Another person had a protective apron placed on them without any discussion as to if they wanted to wear one. Whilst staff were trying to support the person to keep their clothes free from any spillages, they failed to consider people's rights to make decisions about their support.

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. People were not supported with their wishes. We identified in the providers complaint log that a person had asked for their personal care to be done earlier in the day due to friends and family visiting. This was not actioned by staff causing the person to become ‘very anxious’ and subsequently raising a complaint after the incident. Staff had not been proactive to prevent discomfort, concern or distress for this person.

Staff did not anticipate and effectively respond to people’s distress. We identified a number of incidents of distress for one person and daily notes detailed that staff lacked an understanding on how to communicate and de-escalate the situation to prevent any further distress or discomfort for the person.

Staff had not always ensured they escalated concerns that required immediate attention. Staff had not consistently escalated or identified when a person sustained an injury or developed a wound. For example, people were not always supported to reposition when the need was identified.

The provider did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us that between themselves they worked well together and had positive working relationships. However, we found that staff were not empowered to raise concerns. Staff did not have the confidence to raise things with the registered manager, and some staff told us they felt there was a 'blame culture' when things went wrong.

Some staff told us that they did not feel the registered manager was approachable, and staff told us they had not been supportive during times of distress.

Staff had not received the training they needed to deliver safe, person-centred care. For example, not all staff had training to support people with distressed behaviours, and we identified incidents where staff had been injured.