People were given a choice about their daily lives, including when they got up and went to bed, what they ate at mealtimes and where they spent their day. Some people had chosen to lie in on the morning of our visit and staff respected this choice.People told us they thought staff treated them with dignity and respect. One person said "They always knock at my door and are very good when I have a bath or shower. They keep the door closed and keep me covered until the last minute."
We saw that the social care needs for people were provided at the home although people were able to choose whether to join in or not. The home had an activity coordinator who planned group activities and one to one sessions for people.
People we spoke with said they felt "well cared for" and "in the right place".
People said staff were "always busy" but answered call bells in a timely way. One person said other staff had often interrupted care staff who were providing care for them. They said this went on for a while but it has stopped recently after their request.
People said they saw their GP when they were unwell and that staff organised this for them.
We saw that not all care was provided in the way it should. Care records and communication of people's care needs was not always done in a timely or effective way, meaning gaps in care were evident. Some registered nurses had left the home meaning there was an increased use of temporary nurses.
During our visit we spent time observing life in the lounge. We watched interactions between staff and people sitting in the lounge. We saw people were mainly displaying positive signs of well being. We saw that when interaction occurred between staff and people it was good, not rushed and done in a sensitive way. We also saw examples where people were not treated as respectfully. We saw staff use terms of endearment such as sweetheart, love and dear without consent. Two people did not respond to this term of address, but did when staff used their name. We saw three members of staff ignore a person who was calling out. Each member of staff had a task they were performing when they ignored the person.
We also saw an example where the activity coordinator was conducting a quiz which had engaged five people including two with mild dementia. This positive engagement was interrupted by the cleaner coming into the room to vacuum. This caused distress to two of the people.
People told us they felt safe living at the home. We were told that staff were "kind" and "good as gold". People said they would feel comfortable telling any of the staff if they felt unsafe or were unhappy.
We saw good systems for managing peoples finances. A person explained that services such as hairdressing, chiropody and newspapers were paid for by the home and then invoices sent to the family or person.
People liked the staff at the home but commented that there had been a high turnover of staff recently which had been unsettling. People were unaware of what training staff had but we noted that the training programme was inadequate meaning staff had not had essential mandatory training in the past few years.
None of the people we spoke with said they had been formally asked what it was like living at the home. No one was able to recall filling in a questionnaire or survey.
People told us that if they were unhappy about any aspects of life at the home they would speak to any of the staff. People also said they felt confident that any feedback would be listened to and acted upon.
People also told us they did not see the manager much at the home, although staff told us he was present each day. We saw there were no formal methods of monitoring the quality of the service and saw this was done informally as the need arose.