Autumn House Residential 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

The service was not caring. Whilst some staff were intuitively caring, the provider and managers had allowed people to be continually exposed to the risks of poor and inappropriate care and had failed to take action to improve standards of care. This does not demonstrate a caring service. We identified a breach of the legal regulations.

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 told us they were not always treated with kindness and staff had little time for them. One person said, I get told to go to bed, so I do, the staff don’t have much time for me they all hate me.” Another person told us they had been upset when someone else in the home who they were close to had died, and they had not been told. They said, “My friend had died in the home, and I wasn’t told until 4 months later. It made me incredibly sad as I was not able to say goodbye.” People were not always supported to express their views and make decisions about their care. Care records were not person centred and did not reflect people as individuals, including their interests, choices and independence. For example, one person told us they would like to go to church, but due to being short staffed they were unable to go. Another person said, “I like to go out for walks, but the staff won’t take me out. I have to wait for [family member] to take me out.” We received conflicting views from people and their relatives about staff support. Some people and relatives told us staff understood their needs and supported them. However, other people felt they were ignored, and relatives were concerned about a lack of care. Comments included, “[Person] has a buzzer and a mat by the side of their bed and staff come quickly if they call”, “I went to visit at 10.30am two weeks ago. The covers were thrown off the bed. [Relative] was in the bed all curled up and had her dressing gown over her. I didn’t like that and they [relative] said she was cold” and “We noticed that the cord on the call bell switch was missing and [relative] couldn’t call for help. Dad said when he visits no one comes to the room, even over two hours.”

Blanket decisions had been made meaning all people with a diagnosis of dementia did not have a key to their own room and were prevented from freely entering some bathrooms, the garden and the dining room. We discussed these concerns with the management team, who were unable to demonstrate an understanding of the needs of people living with dementia, people’s human rights and the importance of promoting choice and independence.

We did observe some staff speaking to people with kindness, however others were rushed, and task focussed. This meant people did not always receive the support they needed to maintain their independence and make choices about their care. For example, on the second day of the assessment, we observed a person who was unable to independently go to their room and needed socks as their feet were cold. We asked a staff member if they could get the person their socks at 11.20am. At 3.38pm, we saw the person still had not been given socks to wear. This meant we could not be assured the person was supported to maintain their needs and wishes or assisted to go to their room to be able to collect their own socks. During lunchtime on the second day of the assessment, we observed one person who was independently mobile and had a diagnosis of dementia, was not supported to go and sit in the dining room for lunch. We asked a staff member if the person chose to not sit with others. The staff member said, “[Person’s name] doesn’t come to the dining room because they swear and can be disruptive.” We reviewed the person’s care plan and there was conflicting information about where they should be supported to eat and no guidance to consider how staff should support the person during mealtimes in a person-centred way, to minimise the impact of any identified risks on the person and others.’

Assessment and review processes were not in place to ensure people received person centred care that supported independence, choice and control. People were not supported to access individual interests and activities or maintain their independence. The management team and staff had not acted to support people to have choice and control over their life or promote their independence in line with their individual abilities. We discussed these concerns with the management team and provider who following our assessment, worked with external social care professionals to review systems and processes and update people’s care records.

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.