Bedford 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

Staff were described as kind and caring and people said they were treated with dignity and respect. However, our observations showed staff’s interactions with people were largely task orientated, with staff not having the time to provide a more personalised approach. Information about people’s life history, likes, dislikes and interests in their care records was variable in quantity and quality. This had been identified by the provider. People had communication care plans, which explained their needs and preferences. Observations showed these were not always adhered to. Further consideration was needed to ensure the environment on some units was suitable and supported people’s needs and wellbeing. Feedback regarding activity provision was mixed. Although a daily activity schedule was advertised on each unit, these were not being facilitated consistently.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives told us overall staff were kind, caring and considerate. Staff treated people with dignity when meeting their care needs. Comments included, “The staff are very nice. Right from the start you know you are wanted”, “The carers tell me everything that happens, they are very considerate” and “Yes, [I’m treated with dignity], you are always called by your name, not ‘hey you’. I like it here.”

People’s care records contained an ‘about me’ section, where information about people’s life history, background, likes and dislikes and what was important to them was recorded. We found the quantity and quality of this information varied across the care records we reviewed. The provider told us they had already identified this, with actions in place to improve this information. We noted this was an action on the providers improvement plan.

Observations made during the assessment showed interactions between people and staff were polite and pleasant, and staff had developed a rapport with people. However, interactions were often transactional in nature which could be linked to how busy staff were. Staff had time to provide the necessary support or care, but then needed to move on to the next task. People had communication care plans which explained issues they may experience and how these would be met. From observation, we found staff’s adherence to these to be variable. For example, for one person who had a hearing impairment, we observed positive interactions between them and a member of staff, who took time to engage in a meaningful conversation in a way they could understand and identified some past common interests. Whereas, despite the same person informing staff supporting them to stand up, they could not hear the instructions being given, staff did not try alternative methods of explaining what they were going to do and just carried out the manoeuvre. We found the environment on some units to not always be therapeutic. For example, on one unit, dance music was being played at high volume, which drowned out the sound of the television, which some people were watching. It was unlikely people had chosen to listen to this type of music. We noted the general noise on some units was very loud and as a result, people were in heightened states. We discussed this with the provider during feedback and recommended they consider how to ensure the atmosphere on each unit promoted people’s wellbeing.

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.

Mixed feedback was provided by people, relatives and staff regarding activity provision. A number of daily activities were advertised on each unit, however, based on feedback and observations, it was apparent these were not consistently provided. We also noted what was advertised on the units, was different to what daily huddle meeting minutes stated was planned for each day. When asked what daily activities were offered, one person stated, “None, most people just nap or watch TV. About once a month we have a singer or band and we do dancing.” Another said, “I haven’t seen anything going on.”

The home employed 3 wellbeing coordinators, whose role was to facilitate activities. However, due to the size of the home, there was a reliance on staff to also support activity completion. A staff member told us, “The staff try and do daily activities, such as karaoke and table top activities. The activities team tend to do the bigger events. Day to day, it’s the carer’s.”

During the assessment, we observed limited activity / stimulation being provided to people. On one unit, a karaoke session was held. This was facilitated by a carer, supported by a housekeeper. It was not clear if this activity had been chosen by people, as whilst those participating were clearly having fun, those who were not taking part, were noticeably becoming agitated by the noise. On another unit, a staff member tried to engage 3 people in a game of dominoes. Aside from this, we saw no other structured activity. A staff member told us, analysis of falls and incidents had shown a spike in the afternoons, which had been linked to increased agitation, and potentially people being bored. However, rather than ensuring a range of activities and interests were being offered across each unit during this time, we observed people largely being encouraged to sit down and watch TV.

People told us they were able to make choices each day. One stated, “I can go to bed when I want and I decide what to wear.” Another said, “I get up when I want, go to bed when I want and choose my own clothes.” However, during the assessment our observations showed choice was not consistently provided. This was linked to care being task orientated and how busy staff were. For example, during meal time on one unit, the drinks trolley was taken round and drinks served to people, but nobody was asked what they wanted, drinks were given to them with no conversation or discussion. We were told this was because staff knew what people liked. Each person was given a tabard to wear, to protect their clothes. Again, people were not asked if they would like one of these. We fed this back to the provider, who added it to the agenda for the following days huddle meeting.

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.