Cottingham Manor 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 provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Feedback from people and relatives was that staff were kind. Comments from relatives included, “Staff know [person] very well. They’re very kind and they’re very good with [person] indeed. I’m amazed by how patient they are”, “The care is outstanding, given by very caring and support staff”, “The care [person] is receiving goes way beyond the day-to-day health and personal care [person] requires” and “I know that [person] is receiving the best possible care.” People told us they were treated with compassion. One person said, “The staff are wonderful.” However, observations made during the inspection were that staff did not knock before entering people’s rooms, or introduce themselves, and staff were witnessed sharing information about other people to relatives. Feedback from the residents’ meeting supported these observations and said staff did not always wear their name badges.

Feedback from staff was mixed. Comments included, “Depends what floor you are on, it can be quite toxic. I’ve never come across anything of concern [towards people] but have thought I don’t like the way you (staff) are talking to them (people) and haven’t pulled them (staff) up” and “Had to call a couple of staff out on how things have been worded sometimes. Generally, a good culture.” Another staff member told us, “(Staff) are definitely kind with the people who live here.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Care plans were written in a person-centred way. They contained details about people’s personal history and their likes and dislikes. A staff member told us, “Everyone has their own routine of care depending on how they like it, including their likes and dislikes.”

A document was used to ensure people’s food choices were known and understood. However, this was not used by staff on the days we were inspecting. This meant people’s individual preferences were not acknowledged or met fully. For example, the vegetarian food option was not offered to someone who only ate vegetarian food. Observations also found staff disregarding one person’s wishes about when they wanted to mobilise.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People had access to a wide range of activities within the service and outings in the local community. Where people had expressed particular interests, the service had supported these. The provider had recently increased the activity staff provision. An activities staff member told us they were reviewing what activities people liked and disliked and were tailoring their approach to provide activities that people wanted. A staff member told us, “We have a wide choice of activities, change with what time of the year as well, it’s about knowing the [person]. If the activity is not taking interest it will change.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Regular call bell monitoring took place which showed people often waiting lengthy periods for a response. The service had not always investigated why this was the case. The registered manager told us in some instances this was due to staff not always turning off the bell. However, one person told us, “I have to wait long times when pressing [the] buzzer, [they’re] always short of staff. [You can be] on the verge of needing the toilet and you wait and wait, disasters nearly happen.” Another person said, “Time on the call bell can be dependent, have to take your turn.” Observations made during the day showed staff did not always respond appropriately to requests for support from people.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Various wellbeing initiatives were available to support staff. The registered manager held regular ‘drop-in’ sessions where staff could discuss any issues. A staff member told us, “They (the provider) were very welcoming when I started.” Another said, “I’ve had nothing but support, not just professionally but personally as well. The registered manager has been amazing.”