Kingsthorpe View 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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Throughout the onsite assessment we observed staff to treat people with kindness. Where people showed signed of distressed, we observed people to treat people with compassion. We observed when people had spilt food on their clothes, these were changed to ensure people’s dignity was maintained.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. We found no improvements had been made to the concerns that were raised regarding people not having a choice of meals from their own cultural backgrounds. The management told us they had reviewed people’s religious needs in regard to dietary requirements and there was no one who required this support. However, the provider had not reviewed people’s food preferences in regard to cultural food preferences. We continued to observe a lack of person-centred social activities and stimulation to meet people’s social needs. People were observed without access to stimulating activities. There was an allocated staff member to support but there was no clear process or system in place to ensure meaningful activities were completed with people. This placed people at risk of boredom, low mood and social isolation. People and relatives told us they had not seen an improvement. A person told us, “There are no activities.” Another person told us, “They stopped doing activities. The woman who did them has left.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and did not always have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People told us they had not been involved in planning what they wanted to do and were not always given meaningful choices on how they wanted to spend their time. This meant people were at risk of losing their independence, choice and control. The provide did not have a system or process in place to ensure people were maintaining their hobbies. A relative told us.” [person] use to be a painter but since moving into the home they have not been offered to do any painting or drawing.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We found no system or process in place to involve people in their care review or systems to capture their voice to understand their views and wishes. This meant people were at risk of not being heard. Improvements had been made to engage with relatives where people were deemed to lack capacity to ensure the information, they held on people was accurate. There was a new system implemented called resident of the day. Every day it was a different person, and the staff member would review their care plan, deep clean their bedroom, offer some one to one time. We did observe staff had responded to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. Staff told us significant improvements had been made due to the increase of staffing. This meant staff were not as rushed and could provide better care meaning people were having better personal care and outcomes. Staff told us the interim manager who started in October listened to staff and was approachable. This has impacted staff’s wellbeing positively.