Forest Manor 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 were not always treated as individuals and their dignity was not always promoted and supported. We did not observe any meaningful activities taking place within the home and people told us they were often bored. Staff were positive about the support they received from the management team and stated they attended regular team meetings.

This service scored 40 (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 staff were kind and compassionate however people and relatives raised concerns about their quality of care and their dignity. A relative we spoke with stated, “I came to visit my [relative] and found them walking around with a [incontinence] pad hanging out the bottom of their trousers, that’s not dignified, and staff need to support [relative] better.”

We spoke with the registered manager about the concerns we found on assessment and the lack of dignity provided to people. The registered manager acknowledged the concerns and took immediate steps to implement change. We did see an improvement on the second day of assessment.

Partners did not provide feedback on whether people were treated with kindness, dignity and compassion, however, from observations we saw people did not always receive care with kindness and compassion that respected their dignity.

We observed people wearing clothing that was stained with food and faeces debris and staff did not support them to change. During lunch we observed staff supporting people with eating and drinking but not engaging or speaking to the person while doing so.

People were not always treated as individuals. People told us that staff were knowledgeable about them and communicated with them in their chosen way. However, people and relatives told us they were not asked for their feedback consistently. One relative said, “If there is a relative or residents meeting, we don’t know about it. We occasionally get a questionnaire, but I don’t know what comes from the feedback.” A person living at the home said, “Activities are non-existent, luckily I can entertain myself but just to sit and have a chat with staff would be nice.”

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s preferred communication methods and were aware of people’s culture and background. However, staff said they did not get time to socialise with people as much as they would like.

We observed people sat in the communal lounge during the morning. A staff member allocated activity items to people without engaging with them or asking them what they would like to do. For example, one person was given an abacus and sat with it on their lap. Staff did not support them to engage with the item at all.

Care plan contained detailed information on people’s likes and dislikes as well as guidance for staff to support them with their cultural or religious needs. However, there was no evidence to show how the management team ensured that this support was being given to people. Quality monitoring checks such as daily management walk rounds had not identified the concerns we found.

People told us their independence, choice and control were not supported. One person said, “I am so bored, there is absolutely nothing to do here. At my last [care home] there were activities every day but here there’s nothing.” One person showed us their room while we were on assessment and while doing so asked for the radio or TV to be switched on, however neither item within their room was connected or in working order.

We spoke with the activities co-ordinator who gave examples of activities such as crafts, gardening and games that were provided, however they stated, “It can be really difficult to engage with everyone especially when people are in their own rooms.”

We observed the upstairs communal lounge during the afternoon. The room was sparse and did not contain any items like books, magazines or games. People were sat in chairs and not engaged in anything and there was no interaction with the staff member present. We asked the staff member what activity happened during the afternoons, and they stated, “We don’t tend to do anything in an afternoon.” A person asked whether they could have the TV on so they could watch the tennis. The staff member present told the person the remote control was broken and therefore it was not possible.

We reviewed the daily notes of several people to see what activities they had engaged in and found no evidence of any meaningful activities as described by the activities co-ordinator. One person’s record showed they had engaged in a ‘sing-along’ with staff in the upstairs communal lounge. This was not reflective of the activities we saw at that time in the lounge. We raised these concerns with the registered manager who took steps to ensure changes were implemented and improvements were observed during our second day of assessment.

People’s immediate needs were not responded to. People told us they had to wait at times to be supported with personal care and toileting. We observed lunch being taken to a person’s room at lunchtime and left in the room as they were asleep. Their relative told us when they arrived to visit 2 hours later, the food was in the room and no alternative hot food was available and they had to support their relative to eat cold food.

We spoke with the registered manager and raised concerns and they took immediate action. Improvements were seen on the second day of the assessment.

Our observations supported that people’s immediate needs were not always met. For example, one person requested support to go to the toilet and was told by a staff member they would have ‘to wait a little while’. The person made their own way to the toilet and entered a bathroom already occupied by another person. Staff did not intervene to support either person.

Staff were extremely positive about the registered manager and the level of support and guidance they were offered. One staff member said, “I can’t fault [registered manager] they are always available and willing to help out if we are struggling.” Another staff member said, “I can go to anyone of the management team and get support, there is an open-door policy.”

We saw evidence that staff attended regular team meetings and requests for annual leave or shift changes were accommodated where possible. However, staff did not receive competency checks or supervisions consistently. This meant that opportunities to highlight poor care or obtain and give staff feedback was missed.