Archived: 23 Perryn Road

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. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Records did not consistently reflect a respectful or person centred‑centred attitude, and the tone used in some daily notes was inappropriate. For example, an agency staff member recorded a person was “walking all over, banging doors, shouting at staff, does not want to sit at a place, does not interact with staff or other residents.” This was without acknowledging the person’s emotions, possible reasons for their distress, or any supportive interventions used to comfort or reassure them. This type of language did not reflect an understanding or compassionate approach.

Relatives gave mixed feedback about how kindly staff interacted with people. Some relatives told us staff were polite and respectful, reflecting warm and caring relationships. However, a relative told us they did not feel comfortable sharing concerns as they felt the former registered manager perceived them an inconvenience. The provider expressed sorrow after hearing this feedback and told us they were not aware as an organisation, of the person’s experience.

People were not always treated as individuals, and staff did not consistently recognise or respond to what was important to each person. Daily notes were often brief providing limited insight into people’s choices, wellbeing or day to day experiences. This made it difficult for staff to understand what was important to each person and to provide care that reflected their unique needs.

Staff had not followed people’s care plans or guidance and as a result a situation arose where 1 person became distressed.

These shortfalls in practice and documentation meant staff did not always recognise or respond to people’s individual needs, preferences. As a result, people were not always treated as individuals, and their personal circumstances were not always considered in day to day care.

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.

People were supported in a way that promoted aspects of independence, although this was not always consistent across the service. However, relatives told us people were not always involved in any reviews which reduced their ability to make meaningful choices.

Some people were supported to express simple choices, such as food preferences or yes or no decisions, which staff respected. However, other evidence showed people had limited choice and control in other important aspects of their lives such as, what social activities they participated in.

A staff member described prompting individuals to complete tasks for themselves before helping, demonstrating an approach that aimed to maintain daily living skills. A family member also told us their relative was encouraged to carry out small tasks independently, such as taking their plate to the kitchen after meals, and staff “tried to make her do things herself”.

Another family member told us, “Staff promoted my loved one’s independence, to make tea and sandwiches.” Staff also described using active support approaches, such hand over hand techniques when pouring drinks and not doing everything for people.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes.

Responsiveness to people’s immediate needs was inconsistent. Although some experienced staff were able to recognise and respond to individuals’ needs, this was not reliably maintained across the service. Staff were not always present when required, and communication with relatives about injuries or incidents was not consistently timely or clear. These shortfalls reduced assurance that people’s immediate needs were always prioritised.

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

A review of information provided by the service, including staff rotas, showed staff were not always supported to work safe or manageable hours. Several members of staff had been scheduled to work excessively high weekly hours, in some cases exceeding 60 hours a week. This demonstrated the provider had not established staffing arrangements which prioritised staff wellbeing or protected staff from the risks associated with fatigue.

The working patterns did not demonstrate the provider had effectively identified, monitored, or responded to the risks linked to excessive working hours. Staff were not consistently enabled to take appropriate rest or maintain their wellbeing.

Following our feedback, the provider informed us they were, trialling the SONA system at an organisational level to automatically record staff working hours, improve oversight of shift patterns, reduce excessive working hours, and strengthen governance of staff wellbeing by ensuring compliance with compliance with legal regulations.