59 Bury Road

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

During our assessment of this key question, staff promoted independence and treated people as individuals. People’s individual needs and preferences were understood and reflected in people’s care plans. However, we were not assured people always had access to areas of their home they may want to be in as at times people’s behaviours could restrict access to these areas.

This service scored 25 (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.

Staff told us they offered people choices in their preferred method of communication to involve them in their care. The manager told us they encourage people to do as much as they can for themselves instead of doing things for people. Offering people choices, making sure they have activities and contact with their loved ones and friends. They told us, “We are working on funding more activities, we will see what kind of interests they have and what they would want to do. Trial by error when trying something new. Try to find different activities.”

People told us they could choose how to spend their time. One person told us, “It is my choice to be in my bed now.” When asked if they were supported to manage independently, however long it may take, the person told us, “Yes, the staff do not rush me.” They also told us, their preference to only be supported by female staff with personal care was respected. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. A relative told us, ‘Permanent staff have a good understanding of my relatives wishes and background. Newer members of staff may not have the whole picture but through conversations with my sister and myself ensure, they work hard to understand her needs.’’

Throughout the inspection staff demonstrated they had a good understanding of people and their needs. During our second on-site visit, we observed an evening mealtime. We did not observe any of the people living at the home being given the opportunity to be involved in the cooking or meal preparation. We did observe a person being asked if they would like to lay the table, which they did. We observed some people being given a choice of drink and those who were not in the room had the decision made for them by staff. Our judgement is that the mealtime experience could be improved by people being involved in the cooking or food preparation process and not everyone was given a choice about what they would like to drink.

People’s care plans were out of date; however, they did reflect people’s choices and preferences throughout. Daily records reflected choices people made. For example, where to eat, where they wanted to go and people were supported to choose a staff member to go out with if there were more than 1 driver on duty. There was an issue with different people’s needs impacting on others in the home which meant some people were restricted to the upstairs rooms at times as they felt unable to go downstairs when others were in distress. There did not seem to be any choice in this. The manager told us they were creating an upstairs sitting room, so people did not have to stay in their bedrooms at such times.

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.