Clifton Gardens Resource Centre

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

Staff were polite and showed kindness towards people and wanted to help them when they were distressed. But some of the staff behaviour was not respectful and showed they had not considered people's individual feelings. Additionally, staff were focussed on tasks, including writing records, tidying up and laying tables. They prioritised these and having discussions with each other over the time they spent with people using the service. We saw people were not always given choices about their care. However, people were spoke with told us they felt staff usually respected their choices. There was not enough for people to do. There were very few organised social activities and events and people were bored and lacked stimulation. Some people told us they felt lonely.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff did not always respect people's privacy and dignity. For example, they spoke with each other about people. At one point a member of staff called across the room to another member of staff that a named person was in the toilet. At another point, 2 members of staff stood behind a seated person talking about other people. Staff did not always think about how the words they used may be perceived by others. For example, staff referred to people who needed support at mealtimes as ''feeders.'' Staff also spoke with each other about people being in a good or bad ''mood.'' However, when staff spoke directly with people, they were kind and polite. They bent down to speak with people, they used their preferred names, and they used gentle and caring language and tone of voice. The staff also checked people were comfortable when they had slipped in their chairs or fallen asleep whilst seated. When one person became distressed, staff were kind and reassuring offering comfort and physical contact.

Staff interactions with people were often time limited and task based. We spent time observing how people were being cared for in communal areas. The staff did not interact with people for most of the time. When someone was distressed or needed something, the staff were attentive and kind. However, most people sat with no staff interactions or engagement. People told us the staff were kind and caring. Their comments included, ''The staff are lovely, and they know us well'', ''They are respectful and friendly'' and ''The staff are kind and helpful.'' Relatives and visitors also told us this. One relative said, ''From what I have seen the carers are always friendly.'' Another relative commented, ''I can see [person] is treated well.''

The staff spoke positively about the people who they supported and showed fondness for them. They were able to tell us about good practice for respecting people's privacy and offering them choices.

Some of the language and terminology in care records did not show respect for people's choices. For example, one care plan stated the person was ''fussy with foods.'' There were reviews of people's care. They, and their families, were invited to contribute their views as part of these reviews. Although we saw that when a person had explained they were not happy with an aspect of their care during a review, the response they received had not helped to resolve this.

There was no dedicated member of staff to organise social activities. The registered manager told us they were in the process of recruiting to this role. However, the other staff did not routinely support people to take part in different organised or ad hoc activities. They had not undertaken training and did not have guidance to enable them to do this. Following our inspection visit, the provider had recruited a staff member to organise activities.

People were not always offered choices. For example, at mealtimes with drinks or the food offered. The staff had a record of choices people had made at a previous time. However, they did not check people remained happy with these choices at the point of service. People did not receive support to take part in stimulating activities and leisure pursuits. Whilst some people made their own personal arrangements to go out or take part in activities with family or friends, there was very little organised for most people. This meant they did not have opportunities to have fun, learn or keep their minds and bodies active. People using the service and their relatives confirmed this. Their comments included, ''People do their own thing here'', ''The only time there is entertainment is when there is a celebration going on like Christmas, that sort of thing'', ''There is nothing to do, and I tend to stay in my room. It is lonely at times'' and ''There is not much entertainment. Most of the time, [person] is in a chair staring into space, along with everyone else.'' However, there were some regular events, including visits from a therapy dog. People told us they enjoyed these. People could make choices about what they wore, when they got up and went to bed and whether they wanted to spend time in communal areas or their rooms.

People were not engaged in activities or things to do. Most of the time people sat without any engagement or activities. Staff did not provide things for people to do themselves, such as books, puzzles, games, or toys. We saw one person reading a newspaper. People were not always offered choices, for example about the food or drinks they wanted. Although staff knew people's preferences and we heard them discussing these when helping to decide about interventions.

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.