Regency 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

This was the first assessment of this newly registered service. This assessment considered the following quality statement: Kindness, compassion and dignity. People told us staff were kind. From our conversations with staff and observations, it was clear they knew people well and understood how they liked to be supported. Some people told us staff appeared rushed and they did not always receive support as quickly as they would have liked. A few people and relatives reported feeling a bother to staff on occasion. This assessment did not include sufficient quality statements to provide a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This service scored 10 (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. Feedback included, “I do feel staff are kind”, “We can have a good chat with them” and, “They do listen to me.” Some people and relatives felt staff were often rushed. They told us, “Staff are very caring and although pressurised at times are kind” and, “I have to wait a long time for staff when I call my bell.” A few people and relatives reported feeling a bother to staff. They told us staff had responded by saying, “Oh what’s the problem now” and, “What are you pressing your button for again.” A relative told us some staff had used negative language such as, “Your Mum’s playing up.” The service had several shared bedrooms. Some people told us they had not been aware they would be sharing a room when they moved to the home and said they would have preferred a single room. The registered manager said the space available was made clear to families during the admissions process, but they would revisit this to ensure people moving to the home understood the type of room available.

Staff felt people were safe and well cared for. They spoke of taking people out, to Canoe Lake, for coffee or for individual interests such as the theatre, shopping or football. From our conversations with staff, it was clear they knew people well and understood how they liked to be supported.

We received mixed feedback from professionals who worked with the service about the care provided. One professional felt staff took short cuts and did not consistently follow their advice, particularly around moving and positioning. They told us tasks were reported as done but the corresponding records did not demonstrate this was the case. Another professional commented there had been a "dip" in some areas of care planning, but said their feedback was always taken in a "constructive manner". A third gave only positive feedback. They wrote, "I feel residents are treated with kindness and compassion. The care delivered by the home is certainly something I would recommend to friends and family."

On the first day we visited, there was little interaction between people and staff. On this visit, the lift was broken, meaning staff were supporting more people in their rooms than usual. On the second day we visited there was more interaction, with people being offered options where to sit in the lounge and choices as to what they would like to eat or drink. On both days, however, we heard people calling out for assistance and went to find staff to assist them as their calls had not yet been responded to. On both days, we observed people in the communal areas trying to stand up. Although there were staff in the area, they were busy with other tasks and did not appear to notice until the person was on their feet. When people made specific requests to staff in communal areas, we saw these were responded to promptly, for example when a person asked for a drink or requested support to go to the toilet. On the first day we visited, we observed continence pads had been left on top of wardrobes or in chairs. We identified this to the registered manager as a point of dignity and these were removed, out of sight, by the second day of our visit.

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.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

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.