Enter and View: Pat Shaw Residential Care Home, Tower Hamlets

Download (PDF 291KB)

Summary of report content

Since this visit, Pat Shaw House has permanently closed down. Healthwatch Tower Hamlets first visited Pat Shaw (then taken over by Gatewar Housing) on 24th November 2014 and feedback from residents and staff was good. This second visit on 24th August 2016 was conducted as a result of a few whistle-blowing phone calls during 2016, (mainly from care staff) highlighting concerns that the residents care was being neglected because of the high numbers of agency staff being recruited to provide care by the provider. The CQC had given a rating of ‘requiring improvement’ in May 2016. Pat Shaw House is a residential care home for older people, with 38 individual self-contained flats. It no longer has a dedicated ‘Activities Coordinator’, organising activities is now left to the discretion of care workers and team leaders for a more person-centred care. Once a month a residents meeting is held for them to give their feedback on care, staff, food, activities and things they would like to do. 60% of the staff are permanent and 40% of the staff are agency. HW team spoke to 7 residents (some with Dementia) for feedback: • Most residents seem to be “happy and safe” at the daily support they are receiving. The staff are good and listen to them. Residents commented that they like the food and there is sufficient choice. • The temporary/agency nature of care staff is residents’ biggest grievance. Also, they feel there is not enough activities and outings as staff are too busy (restricted with time) and there is not enough of them to take them out on a regular basis e.g. to the shops, parks. • There was a good example of how the provider is helping to overcome resident’s isolation and loneliness. They also spoke to 7 staff members: • Staff feedback was generally mixed, overall the agency staff gave positive feedback about working there, they liked the fact that management are flexible with their working hours and are supportive and seem organised. The permanent staff are not generally happy about the ‘staff reassessment programme’ being implemented by the provider which has left them feeling vulnerable and uncertain. They also felt the over reliance on agency staff is impacting on how residents are receiving their care. HW representatives made some recommendations: • Management should ideally resolve the recruitment and staff reassessment programme issues of permanent staff within a specific timeframe to ensure stability within the home. HW Tower Hamlets would like regular updates on this. • Management organise more regular activities and outings for residents. During the visit in November 2014, activities were a strong element of the service, however it appears that this has declined since then. • Pat Shaw House link up with other befriending schemes such as ‘Amend’ in the case that the ‘Magic Me’ plans to extend the befriending scheme does not come to fruition. • Pat Shaw house link up with community groups and schools as previously, it seems that all the community links under the previous manager had been lost since the previous visit. A response from the provider Gateway Housing is included in the report, but no evidence of impact is shown.

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Enter and View: Pat Shaw Residential Care Home, Tower Hamlets
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Tower Hamlets
Date of publication 
Wednesday, 24 August, 2016
Date evidence capture began 
Wednesday, 24 August, 2016
Date evidence capture finished 
Wednesday, 24 August, 2016
Type of report 
Enter and view
Key themes 
Quality of care
Quality of catering
Quality of staffing
Staff attitudes
Staff levels
Other information of note about this report 
Careplan
Meaningful Activities
Activity Coordinator
Healthwatch reference number 
Rep-0993

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
No
Primary research method used 
Observation
Structured interview
Unstructured Interview
How was the information collected? 
Visit to provider
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 
Announced

Details of health and care services included in the report

Social care services 
Adult social care
Residential care home

Details about conditions and diseases

Types of long term conditions 
Alzheimer’s disease or dementia

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
14
Age group 
All people 18 and over
Gender 
All
Ethnicity 
All
Specific ethnicity if known 
All
Does the information include public's views? 
No
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
Yes
Does the information include staff's views? 
Yes
Types of health and care professionals engaged 
Care / support workers
Service manager
Does the information include other people's views? 
No
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 
Mixed

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Yes
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
Yes but provider disagrees
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
No
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 
No

Network Impact
Relationships that exist locally, regionally, nationally have benefited from the work undertaken in the report
 
Implied Impact
Where it is implied that change may occur in the future as a result of Healthwatch work. This can be implied in a provider  response, press release or other source. Implied impact can become tangible impact once change has occurred.
 
Tangible Impact
There is evidence of change that can be directly attributed to Healthwatch work undertaken in the report.