Queensgate Residential 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

The previous rating for this key question under the old provider was good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. People told us they were happy with the care they received from staff. We observed staff supporting people with kindness and compassion. Care plans recorded people’s individual beliefs and preferences. Policies in place supported the providers commitment to equality and diversity. People and their relatives told us they could make day to day choices such as where and how to spend their time. However, there was a lack of recording of activities for people. Care plans contained some information regarding people’s hobbies, but this was limited and there was no evidence activities were planned around people’s hobbies and interests. We recommended the provider review their processes to ensure people were supported to enjoy daily group activities, and individual interests of their choosing, including support to access the community.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were happy with the care they received from staff. One relative told us; “Yes, staff are kind and caring and, yes they respect [name] privacy they knock before they go in.” Another relative told us, Staff treat [name] well. I have seen the difference from another home. Everyone is friendly. Staff are smiling, and staff communicate with residents.”

Staff we spoke with understood the importance of respecting people’s privacy and dignity.

Feedback gathered by the provider from health professionals, reported that staff were kind. Feedback included; “Staff are very friendly and professional.” and, “I have witnessed caring, person centre care practices during my visits.”

We routinely observed staff supporting people with kindness and compassion. Staff were observed to approach people in a kind manner. However, we observed one incident that was not dignified and this was reported to a manager who confirmed they would follow up on our concern.

People were treated as individuals. One relative told us, “The staff communicate well with mum.”

The management team were able to give examples of when they had previously and effectively supported people's diverse needs including their communication needs and specific diets.

We observed staff interacted on a personal level to support people in line with their preferences and abilities.

Care plans recorded people’s individual beliefs and preferences. Policies in place evidenced the providers commitment to promoting and supporting equality and diversity across the service.

There were limited activities for people to promote interest and stimulation. When asked about activities a relative told us, “No, I don’t think so, they don't have enough to do, I think [name] would benefit from [more activity] in an ideal word. [Name] is a social animal, but they don’t really have any activity going on.” People and their relatives told us they could make day to day choices such as where to spend their time and what time they got up.

Staff told us they promoted people’s choices. However, they told us there was not enough time to support people with daily activities. A staff member said, “Residents do not really have much to do. We have a lovely lady doing activities, but she gets pulled away. For example, to do a shift lead, so there is no one left to do activities.” Staff gave examples of how they supported people’s independence. This included encouraging people to do tasks they could do for themselves rather than just doing it for them in support of their independence.

There were limited activities observed during the 3 days of assessment. There was no visible information to show any activities or enrichment in support of people's well being and life experience were available for people.

There was a lack of recording of activities taking place. Care plans contained some information regarding people’s hobbies, but this was limited and there was no evidence activities were planned to support people to enjoy activities and interests of their choosing. We recommended the provider review their policies and processes to ensure people were supported with daily enrichment; to enjoy individual and group activities of their choosing, to live meaningful and interesting lives.

People and their relatives told us staff were responsive to any immediate needs. For example, if they were in any pain and discomfort.

Staff understood when to recognise and respond to people's immediate needs.

We observed staff responded to people’s immediate needs when they required support. We observed staff provided people with reassurance when required.

Staff told us they felt safe at work. Whilst some staff reported they felt supported with their daily wellbeing, other staff felt at times they were treated unfairly in comparison to their colleagues.

Work was required to enhance workforce wellbeing as there was a lack of regular, planned, and meaningful supervision. Staff were allocated keyworker roles to directly support others. However, they were not always supported to have the dedicated time to complete this role leaving their colleagues, at times unsupported. There were arrangements for on call provision for when management were not at the service.