Roche Abbey 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

We identified 1 breach of the regulations. People were not provided with meaningful activities, linked to hobbies and interests that the person enjoyed before coming to live at the service. The provider had not ensured choice was promoted and people received person-centred care.

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.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

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 asked people if they felt staff were kind and caring. “One person said, “Not always, but you can find some nice people.” One person said they had to wait a long time to access the toilet facilities. Another person said, “Nobody had time for anyone. When I ask if staff can talk a bit longer, they say they haven’t got time.” Another person told us they liked a shower and could access a shower when they wanted to.

Staff spoke about their role in a very task orientated way. Staff explained they carried out 'pad changes' which was a routine completed every morning and afternoon, but was not person centred and not always carried out when people required assistance. The management team told us they had identified some practices in the home required addressing and were in the process of trying to change the culture.

We found care and support provided was not always in line with people's choices, needs or preferences, and was not individualised. Bedroom doors had names on and a sentence about what people liked or were interested in. However, there were no reference to these in people's care plans and their care did not reflect these interests. For example, one person used to like walking the dog and another worked on a farm, yet they did not have access to outside space. One door leading to the front garden was kept locked and only nurses had the key. We saw that staff did not always explain the tasks they carried out including when providing care to people. For example, one person requested assistance using the nurse call system and waited 20 minutes before staff answered the call. Staff then informed the person they would have to wait until they had finished serving the meal. No other staff were informed or asked to assist the person.

We identified a breach of the regulations. People were not provided with meaningful activities, linked to hobbies and interests that the person enjoyed before coming to live at the service. The provider had not ensured choice was promoted and people received person-centred care. People’s choice was not always considered. We found people’s care and support plans did not always contain detail about people’s preferences, and we found some people's preferences were not discussed. There was no access to outside space and gardens were overgrown and not well kept or tidy.

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.