Prema 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

We did not observe any activities within the service during our inspection. A group of local school children had been due to visit on one day of the assessment, however this was not possible on the day. A few people did go out on an organised group activity. Staff did not have much time to interact with people as they were task orientated with cleaning and other duties. We recognise people with mental health needs do not always want to engage with staff or organised activities, however people and their relatives said they often had to wait when asking to go out with staff. We observed positive interactions between people and members of staff. Staff were patient and kind when 1 person became distressed. Staff said they prompted and encouraged people to complete tasks such as personal care. However, due to people living with mental health needs, they often refused and needed repeated prompts over several days.

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 observed staff being kind to people living at Prema Court. We observed staff listening to people and communicating appropriately. We observed and heard staff supporting 1 person when they became distressed. Staff were patient and calm. They kept other people safe by ensuring they maintained a distance from the person until they had calmed down. Relatives said staff were friendly.

Staff said they prompted and encouraged people to attend to their own personal care and to maintain their dignity.

Partners had raised concerns about people’s personal hygiene and presentation which affected their dignity. The registered manager responded that people had mental health needs and could be prompted to attend to their personal hygiene and appearance but could not be forced to do so. Some people chose not to follow the staff prompts.

We observed and heard staff treating people with dignity and respect. We saw people asking to go out with staff to the local shops and this was arranged for later in the day. We observed some people did not attend to their own personal care. We were told staff encouraged people with their personal hygiene, however some people would refuse and needed repeated reminding by staff. We also observed people had little to do for a lot of the time and there was little engagement with staff during the inspection. People were prompted to choose what they wanted to eat and asked if they wanted more.

People were treated as individuals and staff knew their support needs.

Staff knew people’s individual needs, including cultural and religious needs. Cultural diets were catered for, and people were supported to attend places of worship if they wanted to.

We observed staff interacting with people as individuals. They knew people’s needs and interests and how to communicate with them appropriately. However, we also saw that there was often little interaction between staff and people living at Prema Court.

Care plans included people’s individual preferences. People’s cultural needs were identified in their care plans.

Feedback from people was mixed. Some were able to go out when they wanted to. Other people, due to their support needs, had to go out with staff and said they had to wait for staff to be available.

Staff told us most people were independent with tasks related to personal care and were able to assert choice and control over most aspects of their lives. However, people did require some form of prompt, encouragement and reassurance regarding activities of daily living. However, people often refused staff prompting and support and did not maintain their personal care. Staff said more activities were arranged now, for example crafts and going to a café.

We saw people asking to go out with staff to the local shops and this was arranged for later in the day. We also saw some people go out on their own where they were able to do so. We observed many people had little to do and there was little engagement with staff during the inspection. A weekly group activity was arranged, for example going bowling. People were prompted to choose what they wanted to eat and asked if they wanted more.

Care plans included details of tasks people could complete for themselves and where they needed prompting, encouragement, and support. However, people often refused staff prompting and support and did not undertake the tasks.

Feedback from people was mixed. Some were able to go out when they wanted to. Other people, due to their support needs, had to go out with staff and said they had to wait sometimes for staff to be available.

Staff said they knew people’s needs and there were enough staff to support people when they wanted the support. Due to people’s mental health needs, they did not always accept the support offered.

We observed and heard staff supporting 1 person when they became distressed. Staff were patient and calm. They kept other people safe by ensuring they maintained a distance from the person until they had calmed down. People received timely support over lunchtime. However, at other times there was little interaction with people. Staff were busy cleaning people’s rooms for a large part of the day.

Staff said they felt supported by the registered manager and could speak with them if they needed to. However, staff felt that the work allocation was not always even across the team as the ground floor was busier than other areas but had the same number of staff allocated to it. Staff also felt they were not supported by the head office management team.

Staff had not had formal training in de-escalation or the recovery star. Some people living at the service may become agitated and staff needed to manage their behaviours at these times.