St Stephen's 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 service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment we did not assess all quality statements within this key question. The overall rating for this key question remains good based on the findings at the last inspection. People and relatives told us they were supported by staff who were caring and compassionate. However, we observed staff did not always promote people’s dignity or gain consent before carrying out care tasks.

This service scored 70 (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 relatives spoke positively about the support they received. Some of their comments included, “Staff are friendly, they know my name, like to have a chat about the past” and “They are compassionate and should have an award”.

Staff knew how to promote people’s dignity and respect, but this was not always followed through. A member of staff told us, “You need to knock on the door, if there is no reply wait a few seconds and then open the door. Ask for consent, cover exposed parts of the body during personal care, make sure if someone is using the toilet, the door is locked.”

External professionals did not express any concerns in relation to staff and told us they felt they had the required skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

On the first day of our inspection was saw people’s dignity was not always maintained. For example, people received care interventions with their doors being open. People were partially exposed, and staff did not make any attempt to protect people’s privacy and dignity. During a period of observed practice, we saw mixed responses from staff when people required support. Some staff did not always ask people’s consent before commencing a task, for example, when assisting with lunchtime tabards, staff did not ask people if they would like to wear them. On the first day of our visit some staff did not engage with people during their lunchtime experience, and some staff did not always consider people’s dignity when assisting with meals. We saw staff stood up, talking amongst themselves and using their personal phones. We reported this to the provider and some of these issues were addressed by the second day of our assessment.

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.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

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.