OLIVE ROW 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

People did not always feel they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity in their day-to-day care and support. Staff did not always communicate well with people, which left people feeling frustrated and not listened to. Staff did not always understand or respond to people’s requests. People’s independence and choice was not always respected or promoted. This had an impact on people’s care, health and wellbeing.

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not always feel they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity in their day-to-day care and support. One person told us, “I have to wait for long periods to get cleaned up, sometimes [staff] are kind, it all depends what mood they are in.” One person told us, “When I ask to go to the toilet, staff tell me ‘you can do what you need to do in the bed’ but I would rather go to the toilet.” People and relatives told us communication with staff was difficult. A relative told us, “They [staff] do not always listen to me, so I have to write things down for them when he goes out, with his care worker I ask them to put on particular clothes, but they do not take notice.” A person said, “Some of them are nice, some of them don’t speak.” Another person said, “They [staff] are not very good at communication here.”

Staff did not always communicate well with people, which left people feeling frustrated and not listened to. Staff had not received the training they needed to communicate effectively. A visiting professional told us, “Sometimes a language barrier can be difficult and I need to write information down for them [staff] to understand."

Visiting professionals reported to us that they had no concerns with staff’s kindness towards people, however, felt staff required further training in relation to respecting people’s privacy and dignity. One professional told us how, at times, when they visited the service, staff have not ensured people are covered up properly when attending to personal care needs.

We observed one person who was constantly calling out which was ignored by staff and management. Staff had not assessed the person to establish if there was a reason for this, or any plan of care to manage the person’s distress. The person had a medical condition which could cause pain, but they were not given regular pain relief. We observed another person in their room shouting out to staff that it was too cold, and their window was open. Care staff were ignoring them. We observed people asking staff to be moved to other areas of the home, but staff ignored them. One person said, “I just can’t cope with living here.” People’s privacy and dignity was not always respected and always upheld. We observed one person being supported with their personal care in their room which was opposite a room that was accessed by people for activities. Staff did not notice this and did not close the door to respect the persons privacy and dignity.

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’s independence and choice was not always respected or promoted. This had an impact on people’s care, health and wellbeing. One person told us, “I have a special wheelchair, staff do not get me up every day. My back is getting weak as they leave me in bed, I don’t get up every day. They don’t have the facilities for me here, I get no rehabilitation.” Another person told us they wanted staff to hoist them out of the bed to use the toilet, but staff did not get them up. This caused the person to feel distressed. Another person told us how they wanted to use their electric shaver, but staff did not enable this. One person told us staff had not supported or enabled them to brush their teeth for two days. The person said, “I keep saying can I have my toothbrush and toothpaste, it’s in there (en- suite).”

Staff responsible for activities spoke with people individually in their rooms about the activities that were available. People were responsive to this and wanted to join in. However, the care staff did not always facilitate this by supporting people to get out of bed to take part in the activities in the home. We asked a person if they were asked if they had participated in the activities of the day. They said, “No, I would have gone if they [staff] asked.”

We observed a male member of staff entering a person’s bedroom with a sign on that advised male staff should not enter. This was ignored by staff. One person wanted to go outside, they had expressed a wish not to live at the home. They had variable mental capacity to make decisions about their care. There was no risk assessment, care plan or facility to manage their need to go outside, or to establish if it was in their best interest to live at the home.

The provider failed to have systems to ensure people were supported to have choice and control over their own care and wellbeing or have suitable equipment to facilitate their choices. There was no system in place to record what people’s preferences, likes and dislikes. There was no system to set aside time to ensure people could explore or pursue activities regularly or at a time that was suitable to them. There was no system to evaluate people’s independence.

People’s needs, views, wishes and comfort were not always a priority as staff did not have the skills to anticipate these to avoid any preventable discomfort, concern or distress. People told us staff did not always understand what they were asking for.

Staff were not alert to people’s needs or took time to observe, communicate and engage people in discussions about their immediate needs. They did not find out how to respond in the most appropriate way to respect their wishes. Staff had not received training in how to effectively communicate with people. This meant staff did not always understand what people had asked for, or how to prepare foods such as toast. The managers had provided photographs of how to prepare food to assist staff.

Staff did not always understand or respond to people’s requests. Three people complained they were hungry, one person had asked for porridge, but staff gave them Weetabix. Staff did not communicate effectively with each other or with people in their care. For example, one person chose to stay in the lounge at lunchtime, however, this had not been communicated to other staff. Five different members of staff asked the person if they wanted to go to the dining room for lunch and each time they said they wanted to stay in the lounge. This person was getting annoyed at being asked multiple times. This person did not receive their lunch as staff did not communicate the person was in the lounge. We observed that people’s call bells were not always within people’s reach. Staff did not ensure all people identified at risk of falls had their sensor mats in the right place or switched on.

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.