Roche Abbey 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 50 (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. Although individual staff members were observed to be warm and friendly towards people, we could not be assured that people were always supported in a way that preserved their dignity or followed their agreed plans of care. The provider had failed to ensure there were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs effectively. Care was delivered in a task-oriented manner and was not person centred. When people requested support, there was not always staff available to help them. The provider did take action to increase staffing levels and leadership within the service when these concerns were brought to their attention.

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. Staffing was insufficient to delivered care and support in line with people’s preferences. For example, 1 person’s care plan stated they should be offered the opportunity to get out of bed daily and spend time in communal areas. Daily records did not evidence that this was taking place.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Records did not evidence that people were involved in their care planning or that where preferences were recorded that these were being followed.

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. We observed people waiting for care needs to be met and inspectors had to intervene and request staff support to meet people’s needs during the inspection. Concerns regarding the deployment of staff were shared with the provider who took steps to increase staffing.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Feedback from staff was mixed. Some staff told us they enjoyed their roles and felt supported in the workplace, for example a member of staff told us, “It’s a very lovely environment, I do enjoy my job and I feel supported.” Staff also told us that when they had raised concerns regarding staffing levels or concerns regarding incidents in the service, they did not feel their concerns were listened to or acted upon. Staff told us, “Staffing is a big issue, there aren’t enough and it can be very hard,” and “I don’t find supervision helpful, you say what’s on your mind and never hear anything back.”