Kimwick 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 Good. At this assessment the rating has deteriorated to Requires Improvement.

Requires improvement: This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

People’s independence was not promoted, and people were not supported to have choice and control over the activities they participated in. There was a lack of support and encouragement for people to realise their goals and aspirations. We identified 1 breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

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.

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.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service failed to effectively promote people’s independence and people were not consistently supported to access activities of their choice.

One person told us staff did things for them rather than supporting them to do things for themselves. For example, cooking and cleaning.

People’s relatives told us that the support provided did not meet people’s specific needs and preferences. They described how people had become de-skilled whilst living at the service and told us that people were not supported with activities they enjoyed often enough.

Relatives also told us they maintained a close involvement in people’s lives and supported them to maintain their skills and access activities they enjoyed as staff did not provide enough support in this area.

No restrictions were placed on visiting and people’s relatives had no concerns about visiting procedures in the home.

Staff were not able to describe what goals people had for their lives, one member of staff said, “I’m not sure about goals, they [people living in the service] haven’t mentioned anything.”

Staff knew people well and described the activities they enjoyed; however, people told us and records showed these did not happen consistently.

We saw staff supported people to travel to external activities such as college and work that helped to develop their confidence and independence. On the second day of our assessment staff were supporting people to access an activity of their choice. However, people and their relatives told us they were not consistently supported to access activities of their choice.

People’s care plans contained information about people’s choices and needs, including how they liked to spend their time and how staff should support them to maintain their independence. However, people’s feedback demonstrated this did not happen in practice.

Daily care notes did not detail how staff supported people to make their own choices or promoted people’s independence. It was not possible to understand from the daily care notes whether people were being supported to meet their goals and aspirations.

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.