Longmead Court 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

Staff were kind and caring; however, people’s dignity was not always respected. People’s independence was not always promoted and there was a lack of guidance available about how to support people with their decision-making.

This service scored 65 (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 generally positive feedback from people and relatives about the kind and caring attitude of staff. Comments included, “The staff are so likeable and caring”, “They're kind and caring and that's what counts. They also care for us as well; they have been really supportive” and “The staff are so lovely and they are so good with [person].” However, we also received feedback suggesting staff did not always engage in conversation with people when providing care or provide support in a way which was dignified and respectful. The concerns we identified with the deployment of staff and the lack of meaningful engagement impacted on people's experience of care and increased the potential risk of social isolation. The poor management of safety and the concerns identified with the environment placed people at risk of receiving care which did not meet their health and care needs or promote their dignity and wellbeing.

The staff we spoke with talked about people with warmth and kindness. Comments included, “I love working here, with the residents and their families” and “I like to support the people, I like to make them comfortable and their families too and I enjoy talking to people.” The management team told us they welcomed people’s relatives and friends into the service at all times to help maintain strong and supportive relationships which benefitted people’s wellbeing. They told us when they identified any concerns with how staff were engaging with people, this was addressed immediately via supervisions and team meetings.

Health professionals we spoke with did not raise any concerns about the kindness of staff; however, we received mixed feedback about staff's knowledge of people's needs and how well they communicated with people to ensure their care was dignified and respectful and met their wishes. Feedback also identified concerns with the environment and the storage of people's personal and confidential information.

We observed staff speaking to people kindly; however, we also observed a lack of interaction from staff providing people with support. For example, staff were stood over people when providing them with support to eat and drink instead of sitting with them and engaging with them to ensure the experience was dignified and respectful.

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 care plans did not always provide enough detail about how to promote their independence or encourage decision-making. This meant staff may not have clear guidelines to follow to ensure people were consistently supported to maintain independence and make their own choices. Despite these concerns, the people and relatives we spoke with told us staff usually did ask them what they would like. For example, 1 person told us, “I want all my meals in my room and they do that for me well. I really don't want to go to the dining room or lounge, it's my choice and I'm happy like that.”

Staff and managers were able to give examples of how they encouraged people to make choices in their daily care. The management team acknowledged more detail was required in people’s care records to ensure choice, control and independence were more clearly promoted throughout.

We observed staff repeatedly encouraging people to sit down rather than walking with them around their home. This appeared to restrict people’s freedom and independence to move around their home freely with staff support.

The provider's processes for promoting people’s independence, choice and control were not robust. Support guidelines lacked detail about people’s individual needs and preferences and the provider had not always effectively monitored staff practices to ensure they reflected people’s choices.

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.