Pendleton Court 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 remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Observations completed during the assessment showed care staff were very attentive with people, knew them well and referred to them by their preferred name. People clearly knew the staff too and we witnessed laughter and banter between them. People spoke positively about the staff are care provided. One person told us, “They [staff] treat you with dignity and respect, they are brilliant. There has not been one moment over the last year where they haven't respected my dignity.” Where people required support to move around the home, this was provided in a dignified, safe and caring manner. Overall, people looked well presented, clean and tidy and dressed in their own clothes. Personal hygiene charts were completed to document the support people had received or where they had completed tasks independently. These had largely been completed consistently, although we noted some gaps with the recording of oral care. The provider had addressed this with staff. We saw one person’s care plan was updated to ensure staff knew what to do when person refused support with cleaning their teeth, which happened frequently.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. People’s spiritual and religious needs were met through involvement of different local churches who regularly visited to provide services and communion. We noted a number of good examples of people’s individual needs being met. For example, due to an increased risk of infection, one person’s care plan stated they should shower at least 3 times per week. Records showed this was being done consistently. Another person had experienced difficulties following admission, due to cultural and communications challenges. These issues had also led to altercations with other people living at the home. The provider had introduced an individual approach, which included involvement of people from the person’s community and volunteers to support with communication and ensuring the person could regularly and actively access the community, which was something they enjoyed.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Staff were able to explain how they provided choice and promoted people’s independence. Comments included, “People have different routines and different ways. We ask them what they want to do. They may want to get up later or go to bed later, it’s up to them” and “We always ask people what they want, we support them but don’t take over.” People had unrestricted access to visitors, and some people were supported to access the community as part of maintaining their independence, for example go shopping for themselves. People told us there was a range of activities on offer. A daily activity schedule was displayed, and we observed a number of activities during our 2 site visits. These included ball games, ping pong, arm exercises, a quiz and reminiscence session. The home had formed links with one of the provider’s other homes nearby. People took turns visiting each home to link in with activities and events. The provider had also forged links with a local nursery, which allowed for inter-generational interactions, along with a number of community groups. These had resulted in weekly visits to a day centre and attendance at a monthly tea dance.

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.