The Old Vicarage

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

Whilst we observed staff to be caring when interacting with people, we observed minimal activities being offered to people. Key worker meetings were not consistently being offered. People wishes were not always listened to. Staff were unable to provide examples of how they supported people to be independent. Staff had not received frequent supervisions and team meetings, therefore staff well being was not being support due to ineffective systems in place.

This service scored 25 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us that staff are kind and caring and respectful. One person said “They look after me”, however, Key worker meetings with people, where they could express their views, were not happening consistently therefore, people were not always put in control of decisions in their life or able to goal plan.

The core staff team were kind to people and spoke warmly with them. However, we found interactions overall to be minimal and staff did not always appear to be engaged with the person they were supporting.

Health care professionals who visited the home told us “referrals come through when they notice concerns with patients in a timely manner”, another healthcare professional said “All staff I have encountered were respectful and kind to me and the resident during this visit”.

We observed a lunchtime meal where a resident with mobility restrictions was not supported to eat their food in a safe way. The person requested to sit at the table with a chair not in their wheelchair. Staff continued to bring out the persons lunch before they were supported to the table. Staff then provided a table that was lower than the persons wheelchair and placed their plate of food onto it. This was not respectful of the persons wishes.

Relatives told us the staff are lovely people, one relative said “They treat (relative) very well. They are so kind and caring. They listen to me and (relative)”. However another relatives said “They do not know staff well and they are always changing.”

One staff member said “As a whole, the staff take time with the residents. Most staff will go above and beyond. If a resident isn’t feeling happy we can spend time with them.”

During observation of both site visits there was a lack of engagement with residents and activities were minimal.

Care plans, risk assessment and mental capacity assessment were generic and contained system generated and generic information about people’s care and medical conditions rather than how this impacted on the person as an individual.

Relatives told us they were able to visit their family member when they wanted. One relative said “There are no restrictions, we can come anytime”.

Staff told us we do what the individual wants us to do to promote their independence, however they were not able to expand on how they promote independence.

We observed a lunchtime meal where a resident with mobility restrictions was not supported to eat their food in a safe way. The person requested to sit at the table with a chair not in their wheelchair. Staff continued to bring out the persons lunch before they were supported to the table. Staff then provided a table that was lower than the persons wheelchair and placed their plate of food onto it. This was not respectful of the persons wishes.

Systems were not in place to support peoples wishes and goals. Key worker meetings were not happening consistently therefore, people were not given the opportunity to express their views.

One person said “I usually wake before the staff come. I use my bell. The latest thing is after 2½ minutes the bell sound changes and becomes an emergency call. The issue is this. The staff will come in here (room) and turn the bell off. They then say - I’ll be back, or I’ll be back soon. No indication of time. So, after 15 minutes I ring my bell again. If I knew when to expect them back it would be much better but as I don’t I call them again which I think is reasonable.”

One staff member said “Staffing levels are perfect at the moment”, however another staff member said “Due to the layout of the building we need more staff”. We were not assured there was sufficient staff on shift based on the observed waiting times of the call bells.

During our site visit we observed call bells after 2 ½ minutes changing to emergency alarm on numerous occasions. A person was shouting for help, the inspector sounded the call bell as it was out of reach for the person. The person did want to the inspector to leave the room. The person waited until the call bell became an emergency call before a staff member attended.

During our site visit we observed call bells after 2 ½ minutes changing to emergency alarm on numerous occasions. A person was shouting for help, the inspector sounded the call bell as it was out of reach for the person. The person did want to the inspector to leave the room. The person waited until the call bell became an emergency call before a staff member attended.

The provider did not have effective systems in place to support the well-being of staff. Team meetings were infrequent, and staff had not received ongoing supervisions in their roles and no appraisals had been offered throughout their employment.