Cheriton 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

We assessed 2 quality statements in the caring key question and found areas of concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was requires improvement. Based on the findings at this assessment our rating for the key question remains requires improvement. We identified 1 breach of the legal regulations. We observed people’s privacy and dignity was still not routinely upheld and promoted. People did not routinely have access to a hairdresser to promote their dignity which impacted on their appearance. Whilst some activities were taking place, some people and their relatives did not feel the activities provided were stimulating and people who wanted to access the community and garden were not regularly supported to do so.

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 generally happy with the care provided. A person commented, “The carers are all good, they are all very pleasant when they are with me”. However, people and their relatives all commented on the lack of access to a hairdresser which meant people’s dignity was not promoted. We saw some people’s hair looked long, greasy, and unkempt. A relative commented, “He always took pride in his appearance. I know the home haven’t got a hairdresser at the moment and [family member’s] hair hasn’t been cut for ages,” and “Yes, her hair hasn’t been cut or washed for some time. We have paid money for [family member] to have her hair cut too but there is no hairdresser there. They have had trouble finding one although I understand they are getting someone soon. [Family member] has always had short hair before and was always proud of their short hair”.

Staff were able to give us examples on how they would respect people. Staff also told us the importance of respecting people’s religious and cultural beliefs. However, staff did not routinely put this into practice. For instance, staff did not always listen to what people were saying and act on it.

We received feedback from the external professionals who had been working with the home. They told us they had noted an improvement in people’s appearance and personal grooming when they had visited.

Our observations demonstrated people did not always received dignified approach. We saw staff assisting people to move position without explaining to them the support being provided. Another person was being supported with a drink despite them saying it was too hot for them. Throughout the assessment we saw people’s privacy was not respected as staff did not knock on people’s bedrooms doors prior to entering. We raised this with the registered manager to act on. Some staff appeared to have developed good working relationships with people. We noted people smiled and reacted to staff in a positive way. Saff supported them with to maintain their dignity by covering people with a blanket if required. We observed people’s privacy was promoted when they had visitors or telephone calls.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

People have access to their friends and family while they are using a service. However, they did not feel their independence and choices were always maintained. The service had an activity coordinator but feedback showed the activities were not stimulating with no regular access to community activities. A relative commented, [Family member’s name] have settled now but they would really like to go out and about. He is not spoken to all that much and there isn’t too much stimulation for him.” They told us how their family member’s care plan indicated they should be supported to go out in the community twice a week. They commented “[Family member’s name] should be taken out twice a week but it hasn’t proved to be possible. Everyone is always too busy to go with them. They hate being stuck inside and gets restless.” Another person told us they liked to go in the garden, but the garden was overgrown and not accessible.

Staff told us they understood the importance of promoting independence. They told us about the activities available to people within the home. However, some staff commented on the lack of activities outside the home, or the use of the limited garden space.

The garden space was not welcoming to people or their relatives. A paved seating area had a number of ash trays full of discarded cigarettes. The grassed area of the front garden was not mowed, with rubbish visible in places. One person was observed to say, “I want to go for a walk in the sunshine” however, their request was actioned hours after they had asked. Staff routinely asked people about how they wanted to be supported with their mobility, however staff did not always seek people’s choices when carrying out other support tasks. In addition, staff did not always use visual signs to help people’s understanding. We have provided this feedback to the provider. We observed staff used the least restrictive options when assisting people with transfers. For instance, the use of a stand aid rather than a full hoist. During our assessment we saw an impromptu game of bingo took place in the afternoon of our first visit.

The provider and registered manager had policies and procedures in place to ensure staff kept up to date with how people wanted to be supported to maintain choices over their lives and sustain their independence. A daily meeting was held with staff and staff also had access to a handover summary. However, processes were not in place to ensure staff consistently promoted people’s independence, choice and control.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.