The Pines

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.
 

This service scored 65 (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 consistently respect their privacy and dignity.

We observed an incident where staff left one person in the bathroom with the door open, which did not maintain their privacy or dignity. We immediately asked staff to support the person appropriately. During our observations, we also found that while some interactions were warm, much of the care delivery appeared task focused. People also told us they were not always offered a choice of male or female staff to support them, which did not fully respect their preferences.

We did observe some kind and respectful interactions between staff and people. Staff spoke positively about the importance of dignity, with one staff member telling us, “When we take people for personal care, we close the doors, we don’t leave the windows open, and we always ask for consent before doing anything.” Care records evidenced that staff were aware of people’s preferences, and the dignity practice described by staff was consistent with the provider’s policies.

However, the dignity breach we observed demonstrated that these approaches were not consistently applied. This inconsistency placed people at risk of receiving care that did not fully protect their privacy, dignity or emotional wellbeing.
 

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took into account people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care records captured people’s life history, preferences and needs. Including information about how they wished to be supported, including their likes and dislikes. People’s protected characteristics, such as religious beliefs and disability, were reflected in care records. People with religious needs were supported in prayer and had meals prepared in line with their religious needs.

Staff told us, “People need more help to fulfil their needs, we have to offer help to them. We have to support people’s mental health. We need to chat with people, play with them. We play the music on the TV or on the Radio. We do everything they want, according to their needs.”
During our walk around, we observed that people’s bedrooms were personalised with items they chose, such as photos and belongings.

One relative told us, “My [relative] is quite a character, and [their] traits and preferences are recognised by staff. I have witnessed on many occasions the warmth of their approach to my [relative]. It is most reassuring to see.”
 

The provider promoted people’s independence, enabling them to have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The management team assessed the risks to ensure people had the opportunity to engage in activities in their home and in the local community. We found that people were supported to go swimming, visit coffee shops, and visit garden centres with staff. The provider told us 1 person wanted to go on holiday, so the service was planning this.

People were supported to maintain relationships with their families. There were no restrictions on when families and friends could visit.

Staff told us, “One of the most important things is to communicate with them properly. It gives the opportunity to make a choice. Allowing people to perform tasks they can do themselves. Encouraging them to do so.”
 

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 take steps to minimise discomfort, concern, or distress.

We found that healthcare professionals were not always contacted promptly. This meant people’s discomfort or concerns were not always responded to immediately. For example, we found 1 incident where a person had a seizure and banged their head. We found the GP was not contacted until the next morning. This demonstrated a delay in seeking medical guidance following a head injury.

We found other incidents where staff had called for an ambulance without delay and had supported people to seek medical attention in hospital. However, this meant there were inconsistencies in responding to people’s needs without delay.
 

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

The provider told us they were responding to staff needs by providing a staff room, new uniforms, and supporting vaccinations. We saw the provider completed supervisions with staff and engaged with staff in regular meetings, which discussed several topics about the service.

Staff told us they felt supported. One staff member said, “I get enough support from the management and my colleagues. If I need something I can go to the management and they will help me.”