Autumn House Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People were not receiving person centred care and staff did not spend meaningful time with people. Staff were not trained or knowledgeable about some of the support needs people were living with and protected characteristics were not identified or considered. We identified 1 breach of regulation.

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 Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We observed an activity in the main lounge on the second day of our assessment and people appeared happy. However, people told us they were not supported to follow their preferred pastimes or to access the local community. One person said, “I just sit in my room during the day.” Another said, “Why bother getting up there nothing to do here, so I don’t bother”. We found people who were cared for in bed or spent most time in their rooms, were left with no social contact for long periods. One person, who had been unable to get back into their room until staff opened the locked door again, had a television. We asked them if they wanted to watch some television and they said, “It would be nice.” The television was not working and there was no remote control to switch it on. We observed a second person in their room who was in bed and shouting out saying they were cold. We asked them if they wanted to stay in their room or if they ever went downstairs to the lounge. They replied, “There is no life in here they should let us out it’s like a prison in here”. A third person told us, “I stay in my room, I never get the choice to go downstairs”. In addition, we saw several people who were cared for in bed who all had bed rails to prevent them falling out of bed and call bells to be able to seek staff support. We found all call bells were left out of people’s reach, meaning they would be unable to seek staff support. People living with dementia, who were communicating need, distress and agitation in a way that was a risk to themselves and others, were left without any meaningful individualised means of occupation or engaging with others. This was important to improve their quality of life. This meant people living in the service were having different experiences of social interaction and meaningful person-centred engagement, with some being discriminated against due to their level of need or the way they communicated distress.

The management team and staff had failed to recognise people were not supported in ways that promoted equality or recognised discrimination. Although we saw staff spoke to people kindly and engaged some people in meaningful activity and conversation, this was not consistent. Staff and the management team did not appear to have the knowledge and experience to understand how to support people with more complex needs or to reduce the risks of social isolation in a planned and structured way.

Consideration for individual needs and a plan to provide meaningful person-centred activity, including for those people cared for in bed, had not been implemented. The provider employed a staff member to provide activities to people 4 days a week. Activities included following a daily activity sheet, with information about events of the day from previous years, a quiz, and an exercise of the day. Processes were not in place to make sure people had equity in experiences and outcomes. Staff did not understand people's protected characteristics and the culture in the service was not inclusive to all. For example, of the 13 care plans we reviewed, none identified people's ethnicity, 9 did not identify religious needs and none identified sexuality, or marital status, although some did describe people's spouses. The management team did not have systems in place to review or consider how people spent their time and had not discussed this with people. People’s wishes and ambitions were not being recorded or monitored to ensure they were supported to achieve these and staff were not being empowered to discuss this with people. We discussed these concerns with the provider, who following our assessment worked with external social care professionals to review systems and processes.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.