Ingleby 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 service was not always caring and has been rated requires improvement. We found 2 breaches of regulation relating to person-centred care and governance. Staff had kind, caring and compassionate relationships with people. However, care planning processes had not been fully implemented, and there was limited oversight in ensuring each person was treated as an individual. People with more complex needs had not had their communication needs assessed, and there was limited evidence they were engaged in meaningful activity and occupation. Some people were supported in their rooms with no strategies in place to support and encourage socialisation. Staff did their best to respond to people’s immediate needs, however this was not consistent, and care plans did not include engagement or communication strategies. The provider had failed to ensure staff were appropriately supported.

This service scored 40 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People, and their relatives, told us the staff were kind, and respectful. People also said they had privacy and were treated with dignity.

Staff spoke about people with kindness and respect and clearly new people well.

No concerns were shared in relation to kindness, compassion and dignity.

A high number of people were supported in their rooms, so engagement was limited. Staff were observed to treat people with respect and dignity.

Some people were treated as individuals and were supported to spend time outside of the home whilst other people did not receive the same quality of individualised care.

Staff told us they treated people as individuals and listened to them. However, person centred information was lacking and some people’s communication needs had not been assessed meaning strategies to support staff to meet people’s individual needs was limited.

Some people who were engaged in their care were treated as individuals and were supported to spend time out of the home, other people whose needs were more complex did not receive the same level of equity in terms of meaningful engagement and individualised care.

Processes were in place; however, they had not been fully implemented to ensure everyone was treated as an individual. Care plans were not person centred. We saw no documented information on people’s religious or spiritual beliefs and people’s communication needs were not always assessed or met.

People were able to have visitors whenever they chose to, and they told us their views were limited and choices respected. However, there was limited evidence people had been included in care planning, meaning we could not be confident people were in control of their care and wellbeing.

Some staff commented that there are always activities going on, whilst others mentioned the need for more activities in some areas of the home, particularly for those people who had more complex needs or were living with dementia.

We observed some people’s independence and choice was promoted; however, this was not the case for everyone, particularly people with communication needs and complex needs. Activities were available to people who were more sociable and able, however people who spent time in their rooms had limited meaning activity and engagement. The management team said this had become the norm since the Covid 19 pandemic.

Processes were not in place to encourage and support people to engage in social activities. Nor was meaning engagement offered on a one-to-one basis. If the activities co-ordinator was out with people no activities were offered within the home, likewise at weekends we were told activities stopped. The new regional manager was aware of this and planned to introduce a co-production approach where people’s holistic needs were assessed to ensure they had meaningful engagement. This approach had not yet been implemented.

People said their needs were met although some people commented that they had to wait for moving and transferring equipment and staff to be available to support them.

Staff told us they spoke with people to make sure they could meet their needs. They discussed one person who they said needed some specialised equipment for transfers which they had raised several times but hadn’t received. We raised this with the home manager who initially didn’t know what was required but later said a referral to occupational therapy had been made and he was awaiting an outcome. Staff were also concerned about another person who sought contact with staff on a frequent basis by shouting. We observed staff were not always able to respond due to competing priorities.

We observed staff were doing their best to respond to people’s immediate needs, however care plans did not include detailed strategies for staff to follow if people presented with distressed behaviour. The nurse call system went off constantly and sometimes for long periods of time. If the nurse call was pressed on one floor it sounded across both floors, so staff had to constantly check the panel to see which floor it related to. It was also noted that the alarm continued sounding even after staff had knocked it off. The manager said there was an issue which was being looked at, however the nominated individual said it hadn’t been reported as broken.

Staff told us, “For the first 6 months I was here I had continuous 1-2-1’s but since that manager left, I’ve not had a lot.” Other staff told us they had not had one to one support meetings or annual appraisals. The manager acknowledged this was an area for improvement and said some supervisions had been held recently and a plan was in place to ensure they were provided in line with policy in the future.

Processes were in place to support staff wellbeing; however, they had not been implemented. A support and development matrix was used to track 1-2-1’s and staff meetings. Of 39 staff, on the staffing list, 5 were not included on the matrix, and 17 had not had a support meeting during 2024. This was not in line with the providers policy which stated staff should attend a minimum of 4 support meetings per year. Initially, the manager was only able to find staff meeting minutes from July 2024. Minutes suggested this was a management led process with limited opportunity for staff to share feedback and be supported with identifying solutions to areas which needed improvement. A further meeting was held during the inspection. Following a further request, minutes of meetings were found from earlier in the year. A provider oversight report stated feedback surveys had been completed in June 2024 however the manager was unable to find them. Further surveys were being completed.