Hebburn 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

We found a breach of the regulations relating to person-centred care. Although some people and relatives gave positive feedback, we found people did not receive good care that promoted and enhanced their wellbeing. Some staff did not understand people’s needs which meant people did not always receive the correct care. People were not always treated with dignity and respect. People did not have the opportunity to participate in meaningful activities.

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 and relatives did not provide specific feedback on kindness, compassion and dignity. However, people did not always receive care which enhanced their wellbeing.

The interim management team told us the staff needed training in person-centred care and dementia care. They felt the staff had a good approach generally to people but needed to improve their understanding of dementia care. Staff described the ways they aimed to promote kindness, compassion and dignity. One staff member said, “I always knock and ask before I go into someone’s room, it’s their home.”

Following recent whistle blowing concerns about Hebburn Court, the local authority had been monitoring the situation. External professionals had also been assessing people’s needs and making recommendations about what was needed to ensure they were safe and their needs met.

There were some positive interactions observed between staff and people. Some staff spoke very highly about the people they supported. However, other staff did not interact at all with people. People upstairs were not wearing footwear, just socks or no socks. The interim management team explained they had purchased non-slip socks for people until their footwear was assessed, as people were walking around barefoot. However, not all people were wearing the non-slip socks and other people wore them incorrectly.

People and relatives did not provide feedback about treating people as individuals. However, people did not always receive personalised care that met their individual needs.

Although care plans were not up to date, most staff could describe how people should be supported.

Staff were not always attentive to people’s individual needs. At lunchtime people living with dementia on the first floor were not supported to make choices about what they wanted to eat. People requiring an adapted diet were all given the same pureed meal regardless of their individual needs.

People’s care plans were not person-centred. They were inaccurate, lacked information about people’s specific needs or contained conflicting information. The provider was in the process of updating each person’s care plans to help ensure they reflected their current situation.

People and relatives did not provide specific feedback about this. However, people were not always supported to make choices, such as at lunchtime.

Staff described how they promoted independence, such as giving a person a flannel to wash themselves. Staff told us there were very few activities at the home. A staff member said, “There are no activities, they were going to start an activity coordinator. We have one who is on long term sick. They need some stimulation as they do nothing. They are bored stiff.”

The planned baking activity was not meaningful and lacked structure or quality time dedicated. It consisted of a staff member walking around the home with a bowl of cake mixture and a whisk asking people to stir the bowl. This was while they were also attempting to care for people. There was little interaction between people and staff. The staff member conducting the activity was temporary and did not know people’s names or their background.

The provider did not provide meaningful activities suitable for people living at the home. A notice of activities was displayed in the reception area showing the planned activity for the day baking. The following day the advertised activity ‘Mr Motivator’ did not take place and no alternative was offered. There were no records to show which activities people had been offered to take part in. A manager confirmed these records were not available. The activities coordinator was currently on sick leave.

People and relatives did not provide feedback about this.

The interim management team told us they had provided staff with more accessible information about people’s needs, including signs a person may need help. They said they were working with staff and relatives to review people’s care.

Staff did not always respond quickly to ensure people’s needs were met. During lunch a person was attempting to eat soup with a fork, however staff did not offer any prompts for them to try their spoon. Staff did always respond appropriately when people displayed distressed behaviours.

Staff felt more supported now, since concerns had been raised about the home. A staff member told us, “I feel like I have a supportive network, the past few weeks since the owners came in.”

The provider was unable to provide records to show staff had participated in formal one to one discussions and performance appraisals.