St Leonards Rest Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Care plans lacked person-centred details and did not guide staff on how to support people safely. For those who lacked capacity appropriate representative were not always involved in the implementation of care. Staff knew the people they supported well and were aware of people's preference, some staff could describe people's favourite songs or their favourite drink. We observed staff members speaking to people in a person-centred way

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 were offered showers and personal care. People who were able told us staff assisted them when needed and they could request drinks and snacks. Some people said they were bored, there was nothing to do and the TV was on most of the day. Some people told us they would prefer to listen to music, watch a film or play games they were not always given an option. They told us some staff just sit around either chatting or vaping when they are not caring for people. The provider informed us following the inspection that staff that are sat vaping are entering information in the care system. Others told us they were happy, and the service was “Thoroughly good”, “Nothing was too much trouble” and “I get help from the staff”. Staff support people to go to healthcare appointments. The provider informed us following the inspection staff also support people to go out in the community.

Staff told us they promoted a person-centred approach, and care was provided in line with good practice guidance. However, this was not supported by our findings in relation to providing person centred safe care. For example, the provider told us they completed a pre-assessment before people moved into the home, which included finding out about the person and their likes and dislikes. However, we found a person’s pre-assessment did not include a risk of self-harm highlighted by the service they had moved from until after 2 incidents. Records showed 2 incidents of self-harm since they moved to the home. During the inspection the provider gave us an example of how staff encouraged people to get up in the morning and not “waste the day”. This included giving people a cup of tea and putting the radio or TV on in people’s bedrooms. If they still did not get up after finishing their tea and when the day staff arrived, staff opened a window. If they still remained in bed staff removed their bed clothes. The provider told us following the inspection, that this initial response was hypothetical. People’s care records did not demonstrate their individual preference for being woken up. Staff told us they would recommend a relative to live at St Leonards because of the level of care the staff provide to people. Kitchen staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and their likes and dislikes. They explained what they would do if someone didn’t want to eat what was on the menu. For example, offer other available options, and inform the care manager in case the person was not very well. There was a list of individual’s food intolerances and staff confirmed their understanding of modified diets. Some people were able to prepare their own food, and staff knew who could safely do this and what support they required.

The home does not employ an activity coordinator; the carers provide activities. On one day of our inspection a member of staff was engaging with 5 people with a quiz. It was evident through observations and conversations with staff they knew the people they cared for well. We saw a ‘shower list’ where people were allocated a day to have a shower. There were no baths available if this was people’s preference. The provider told us in the past people had not wanted to use the bath due to a dislike of hoists and difficulty accessing the bath. We saw staff interacting well with people, ensuring they had drinks and food when they wanted and comforting them when they became anxious or upset. Lunch was calm and relaxed, and staff supported those who needed help appropriately. We saw a staff member supporting someone with their meal in a very calm way, at the right pace for the person. We saw 1 person pacing outside, and staff said they did this when anxious. Staff quickly noticed this, went to speak with them, asked how they were and spent time with them.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.