Cloisters 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 treated with kindness, compassion and dignity. However, some interactions from staff were rushed and task based. People were treated as individuals. People were supported to make choices. The provider recognised staff wellbeing was important, but staff had not always felt supported.

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.

The staff understood about providing compassionate care. They knew people's likes, dislikes and how they wanted to be cared for. Staff had undertaken training about dignity and respect and were able to tell us what this meant and how they provided respectful care. However, they said they did not always have time to provide personalised care for people.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. They and their relatives spoke about this. Their comments included, ''It is like a family here'', ''The staff are kind and respectful'', ''They are lovely and have patience'' and ''The staff are very kind and friendly, not always easy to get hold of them, but they will always help.''

We observed staff interactions with people were kind and caring. Staff did not always have time to spend with people and sometimes their interactions were limited to the task they were supporting people with. This meant people sometimes did not receive quality interactions. When people were distressed, the staff spoke with them kindly and reassured them. But these interactions did not last long as the staff left to attend to other tasks. We observed some personalised interactions, where staff spoke with people in their preferred languages and involved them in the tasks they were doing. For example, one staff involved a person when they were writing records. People who were part of group activities were supported with longer interactions. Staff and the group of people who they were supporting engaged well and there was a positive atmosphere.

Community partners told us most staff were kind, caring and supportive towards people. They explained they had witnessed some staff being unkind but had reported this and the management team had responded appropriately.

The staff were able to tell us about the people they were caring for. They knew them well and spoke positively about them and how to support them.

We observed families and other visitors were welcomed at the service and able to spend time with people. There was a relaxed atmosphere. People were treated as individuals. People told us they were offered food which reflected their preferences and individual needs.

People were treated as individuals. The staff spoke a range of different languages and had different cultural backgrounds. They used their knowledge and skills to support people with their preferred language and culture. However, the staff could not speak the language of 1 person. We heard staff trying to support them. The person regularly became distressed, and, because of the language barrier, it was hard for staff to provide the right support for them. The provider had supported some people to have personalised experiences which included arranging for 1 person's family member to celebrate their wedding at the care home so the person could attend. There were also special events organised to celebrate religious and cultural festivals.

The provider employed staff who planned, facilitated and coordinated social events and activities. These were designed to reflect people's interests and individual needs.

The provider had a system whereby they reviewed people's care needs once a month. The system was meant to involve people using the service and their relatives. We saw records of these reviews. There was limited evidence that people or their representatives had been involved. Sometimes reviews had not taken account of changes in people's needs and, therefore, care plans had not been updated. The environment had some features designed to engage people. However, some of the décor and furniture did not reflect current best practice for providing dementia friendly environments. There was signage, but this had not always been personalised to reflect individual needs. For example, signage was not recorded in different languages. When we arrived at the service, some of the information about the day, menu and activities had not been updated to reflect the current day.

People were given choices about where they wanted to be and how they wanted to spend time. Staff respected their choices and did not restrict people's movement around the home. People told us they enjoyed getting involved in activities.

Staff responsible for coordinating activities told us they involved relatives to find out about people's interests, choices and needs.

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.

Staff told us they felt supported by each other. Some staff said they had not always felt supported in the recent past, particularly when they had raised concerns. One staff member said, ''We have not always been heard.'' Another staff member told us, ''There used to be bullies within the staff team, we were so unhappy. But it is better now they have gone.''

Whilst there were informal processes for supporting staff, the formal processes, including supervision meetings and appraisals had not always been implemented. This meant staff were not given the right amount of guidance and support to understand their roles and responsibilities, learn when things went wrong and feel rewarded when they had worked well.