Country Court

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

Care was not always individualised to the person and people were not always supported to be independent. For example, people who were independent spent long periods of time in bed, there were no positive risk plans in place to engage them with the service and enhance their independence. One person was nursed in bed because they were aggressive and required 1-1 support if they were in communal areas. However, we observed some kind and caring interactions between staff and people.

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 observed staff speaking to people with respect and they appeared to genuinely care for people, however interaction was minimal and very task focused. We observed staff supporting a person with a hoist, there was very little interaction with the person and no explanation of what they [Staff] were doing. A relative said” I am not sure staff know what it is like for someone living with dementia, I think they could do with more training, they perform general basic care well though.”

Staff told us they always treat people with kindness and respect.

Staff interactions appeared task focused with very little engagement. A professional visiting the service told us there was very little interaction with residents and they spent a lot of time in their room with the door shut.

Some people told us staff were kind and caring and spoke to them with kindness. Comments from people included, "staff would knock they would not just barge in, they treat me with respect,” and “They always knock on my door to let me know they are coming.” However, one person told us they were lonely, their door was always shut and sometimes they did not have access to their buzzer to call staff. We observed staff speaking to people with respect and they appeared to genuinely care for people, however interaction was minimal and very task focused. We observed staff supporting a person with a hoist, there was very little interaction with the person and no explanation of what they [Staff] were doing. A relative said, "I am not sure staff know what it is like for someone living with dementia, I think they could do with more training, they perform general basic care well though.”

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.

People were left in bed for long periods of time and were not re-assessed to promote mobility and enhance their quality of life. Buzzers were out of reach. One person was left alone in their room with no stimulation, unless care staff came to perform basic care. People in their rooms were left unattended with doors closed. A relative told us, “At times [Person’s name] has missed their lunch, no one comes to see them.” One person said, “I am always in bed unless there are activities on.” People were not always risk assessed to live their lives to their optimum level. People were assessed to stay in bed by care staff, there were no care plans or risk assessments in place to improve people’s mobility to enable them to get out of bed, A relative said “[Person’s name] is in bed 90% of the time, they could get out, but they [Staff] don’t seem to want to try.”

Staff spoken to appeared to lack understanding of person-centred care. A staff said, “Everyone’s care is personable to them,” but were unable to give any examples of person-centred care. Staff told us they made decision for people who did not have capacity in their best interests.

We observed people left in their rooms unattended for long periods of time with no stimulus. There was only 1 activity co-ordinator who did not have the resources to support activities with everyone in their room. Drinks and buzzers were left out of reach for people.

Processes did not promote people’s independence. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 was not used to ensure people’s rights were upheld and people or their families were involved in decisions about their care. People’s preferences and likes and dislikes were not included in care plans and risk assessments. Care plans and risk assessments did not include how people would like to be cared for.

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.