Finch Manor Nursing 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

Our rating has changed from inadequate to requires improvement. People did not always feel they were treated with dignity and respect as at times., staff were too busy to support them in line with their preferences in care. Staff did not always respond to people’s immediate needs as quickly and efficiently as people needed them to. A variety of social and leisure activities were available for people to engage in, however due to several people cared for in bed, the service had limited resources to ensure appropriate opportunities were made available to everyone, when they wanted it. Staff did understand and respect peoples cultural and religious needs. We observed people treated with kindness, and genuine and friendly relationships between staff and people had formed. Initiatives were in place to promote the wellbeing of staff.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We received mixed feedback whether staff treated people with kindness, compassion and dignity. One family member we spoke with did not feel their relative was always being treated with dignity and respect. The told us, “We have noticed some faults. At first, [Staff] were not letting [Name] use the commode. Some staff were saying to do it in the pad, which [Name] did not like. I think it was probably too much effort for them to use the hoist.” This view was not however shared by other family members who told us, “They always make me feel welcome, and staff all seem to know who I am," and "The staff are really lovely, cannot fault them." People told us, “They [staff] are very nice and help a lot, they work hard,” “They [staff] are all great, get on with them all” and, “They [staff] are lovely, but they don’t like to chat and will just put the radio on in my room.”

Staff explained how they maintained dignity whilst providing personal care and gave examples which included, closing doors and curtains, making sure people were fully covered up and asking permission for consent to support. Staff told us whilst they were busy, they would always try to make time to talk and listen to people. The provider explained they were undertaking observational audits of the mealtimes to monitor interactions and to ensure people were supported in a dignified manner.

A healthcare professional who visited the service regularly commented positively about the staff approach with people. They told us, “Staff are really attentive to the residents, kind, caring, good interactions.” Another visiting professional told us, “I recently did an audit at Finch Manor and noticed a significant improvement in staff engagement, staff morale, resident engagement with staff.”

We observed positive interactions between members of staff and people within the communal areas of the service. For example, people were playing games, laughing together and staff involved people in the conversations within the room. Staff spoke about people in a kind and caring manner. One person who chose to spend their time in their bedroom had a privacy screen in place to protect their dignity.

We received mixed feedback whether people felt they were treated as individuals. People did tell us their religious and cultural needs were met. A family member told us the activity workers ensured their relative received meaningful interactions most days. However, another family member told they their relative was not always assisted to shower in line with their preferences. they told us, “[Name] says they very rarely get a shower. They like to get a good wash but does not get washed properly in there.”

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the religious or cultural needs and preferences of people. Staff were able to describe examples how they provided appropriate support. Staff gave examples how they tried to develop and provide a programme of activities which reflected people’s interests and hobbies. Activities were provided to a group or through one-to-one activities for people who were cared for in bed. Some staff expressed concern they felt they did not always have enough time to spend with people and came to work outside of their normal working hours to ensure people could access activities in the community. One staff member told us, “I come in and take residents out shopping on my days off.” We were told there should be two staff members dedicated to activities across the service however, one had recently left. The provider was actively recruiting a replacement, but this meant the remaining worker currently had sole responsibility which created a challenge in meeting everyone’s needs.

We observed staff within different units had varying amounts of time to spend with people. This was due to the care needs of people within the different parts of the service. We saw people were encouraged to use their preferred areas of the service, for example, a group of gentlemen chose to sit together in one area to watch a movie. There was a relaxed atmosphere with a constant staff presence. However, the area was not closed off from the main corridor, so people were frequently disturbed by rattling noises caused by laundry and kitchen trolleys as they were moved around the building and staff walking through the entrance doors to the unit. Care staff told us this couldn’t be helped due to the layout of the building.

Religious and cultural needs of people were clearly and consistently documented through care plans, however, some care plans lacked detail about people’s preferences about care. Staff did not always have access to detailed information about a person’s personal life histories. In some case pronouns were incorrect for people. We raised these issues with the management team. The provider had already identified improvements were still needed within care plans and explained they were in the process of undertaking audits to check the quality of information recorded.

Family members told us they were able to visit regularly. People who lived at the service told us they were able to maintain important relationships. Family members told us people were provided with choices at mealtimes, for example, options at breakfast included cereal or a cooked breakfast. A person commented, “When its mealtimes you get 2 options and it’s all good. They don’t give you rubbish.” This view was not shared by everyone however, and some people told us they did not like to food or that it was served cold. They said they had complained on several occasions, but improvements had not been made. We shared this feedback with the management team. We were shown copies of meetings with people to discuss the quality of food in the home, however, further work was needed in this area. Several people were living with long term health conditions which meant there were unable to get out of bed or only for short periods. People were dependent upon care and nursing staff to assist them with many aspects of their care. However, one person told us staff had supported them to become more independent with their mobility. They said, "I couldn’t walk when I came here, but I am walking better now."

Staff told us family and friends of people were encouraged to come and visit people as well as participate in activities within the home. We were told, “Yes, families are encouraged to come in and visit” and “[Family members] are all coming to the Halloween party. I have made up goody bags for the kids to get them involved.” Staff were able to describe ways in which they encouraged people to make choices and promoted their independence.

We observed people being offered a choice where they wanted to take their meal. Dining tables were nicely presented. We observed family members and friends visiting people on all days of our assessment. People were supported out of the home by visitors and staff. People were encouraged to personalise and decorate their bedrooms when they chose. We observed people had the equipment they needed to mobilise around the home which encouraged them to be as independent as they could in this aspect of their care.

Contact details of individuals important to a person were clearly documented in care plans as was information when people were able to do things for themselves. For example, make choices about what they would like to wear. Peoples preferred routines were also detailed. For example, one person chose not to be disturbed through the night, and this was clearly recorded.

People and their family members told us staff responded quickly to people’s needs, particularly when they were unwell. One family member told us, "One time [Name] was poorly, the home called the doctor out, and they went to hospital. [Staff] phoned to tell us there were on their way there.” People told us, “Yes they always help quickly.” However, feedback about response times to general requests for assistance, such as when people used the call bell was less positive. People told us they sometimes waited significant period of time for staff to respond. We shared this feedback with the management team.

Staff understood people’s health conditions and knew how to respond in an appropriate responsive manner.

We observed times during the day when staff were busy and there were delays of 10 minutes to respond when people used their call bells to seek assistance. The call bell system was confusing as the alarm system sounded throughout the service, even when the assistance was not needed in the unit where it was heard. We always observed staff present in the lounge areas to respond to people’s immediate needs in the communal areas.

Staff had access to facilities to take a break. We observed this room to be used throughout the day. The provider had introduced an employee of the week recognition scheme and provided snacks to staff on ‘Thank you Thursdays’. Feedback from staff demonstrated this was a generally appreciated gesture. The chief executive shared information how they had supported staff through periods of both ill health and personal development.

The provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place to support workplace wellbeing including flexible working arrangements.