Bearwood House 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

People were supported by caring staff who knew people well. People were supported with choices such as their clothing and attire and were able to move around the service independently where able. Improvements were needed to ensure people had access to activities to maintain their wellbeing. People did not always have a positive meal time experience and monitoring of people was not always individualised in line with their needs. People's independence, choice and control was not always promoted and the records did not reflect a person-centred approach to people's care.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

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 we spoke with confirmed they were supported well by staff. People did not appear to have meals at times to suit them, for example some people received their breakfast at 11am and lunch was served at 12. We observed one person was told by staff to finish their biscuit before starting their porridge the person told the staff member “No I want my porridge”. When asked about activities, one person told us, “We just sit here, they need the activity coordinator back”.

Staff confirmed people had input into their care and this was reflected in their care plans. One member of staff told us, “We have handovers daily, they are useful to update with people’s needs, it gets passed on straight away and documented then see what steps we can take.” We discussed the ‘blanket’ monitoring of people's bowel management with the covering manager and the Nominated Individual, they informed us they would review people’s needs to ensure only people requiring specific monitoring would be in place.

Staff demonstrated knowing people well and supported them with their input. We observed one member of staff offering one person some magazines, then offered to go and get their glasses. This meant staff knew the person’s needs and involved them in deciding to use the glasses. People had choice in their clothes and attire. One person had make up on and notable pieces of jewellery ,which they commented they loved their jewellery and had hundreds of pairs of earrings. People were able to move about the home freely and independently with use of equipment aids where required. We found however, one person was supported with their personal care in their bed, it was detailed in their care plan this was due to the person being “deemed unsafe for a toileting sling due to poor core strength”. We observed this person to have a good sitting balance and was able to self-propel and sat upright in their wheelchair and had good sitting balance throughout the day. When we raised this with the covering manager confirmed they could not identify where this came form and stated this could be due to the person’s health condition. People were monitored when this was not always required, for example, where people had capacity to consent to their care and treatment, we found staff asked them about their bowel movements following accessing the toilet facilities independently. There was limited activities for people, there was not much choice and we observed staff bringing over jigsaw puzzles and placing them on tables which did not fit.

People’s care records did not always ensure they received person-centred care or demonstrate their input into the delivery of their care. For example, we found people’s daily records showed people were consistently monitored when they had not been identified as requiring the level of monitoring in place. This meant people’s independence, choice and control was not always person-centred or promoted.

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.