Sotwell Hill House

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 80 (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 consistently treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, and respected their privacy and dignity in all aspects of care. Staff also demonstrated respectful and professional relationships with colleagues and other organisations, which supported a positive and caring culture across the service.

Throughout the inspection, we observed staff interacting with people in a warm, patient and compassionate manner. People responded positively to staff presence, smiling and engaging when staff entered rooms, which demonstrated trusting and positive relationships.

People spoke highly of the care they received. Comments included, “The carers are very kind and helpful to me. They are ever so kind,” “I always feel safe because the carers are so kind to me,” and “Staff know me and I am sure they know what they are doing. They know me well and know how I like to be independent.” Another person told us, “Carers are busy, but they make time to talk to you.” People felt valued, respected and supported by staff.

People’s dignity and presentation were well maintained. People were observed to be clean, well dressed and appropriately groomed, and personal items such as glasses were clean.

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

People were supported to make choices about how and where they spent their time, including where they preferred to eat their meals. Some people chose to eat in the dining room, while others preferred to eat in quieter areas such as the lounge or their own rooms. Staff respected these preferences and ensured people were supported in a way that was comfortable and meaningful to them.

The service supported people from a range of backgrounds to maintain their faith and continue practices which were important to them. People told us their individual choices and preferences were respected. One person said, “Occasionally we have a church service here. This Easter I went to the special service here. A lady comes in from Wallingford church. I always have gone to church.”

The provider demonstrated a strong understanding of people’s cultural and spiritual needs and supported them in a highly individualised way. The home supported people from the Plymouth Brethren community and had made thoughtful adaptations to meet their specific beliefs. People were provided with a dedicated dining space and supported to eat together in line with their faith. They were also supported to remain connected with their community, with visits from members of their faith group and the facilitation of regular brethren meetings.

People were enabled to practise their faith in ways which were important to them. For example, the service supported people to take part in communion at dawn, around 4.30am, in line with their beliefs. One person told us, “If I need to go to communion, I find somebody makes sure I’m up at 4.30am.” Others were supported to participate in religious services remotely, such as joining meetings online via Zoom. This demonstrated a flexible and responsive approach to meeting people’s spiritual needs.

The provider was exceptional at promoting people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People and their relatives spoke highly of the respectful, person-centred approach. One person commented, “I can honestly say I love it here. I can do what I want to do within reason. I like it that I’m not dictated to. If I want lunch here or downstairs, I can. It’s the flexibility I like.”

People described making choices about daily routines and receiving care that reflected their values and individual preferences. Staff adapted support in ways that maximised independence and autonomy. “I make choices around the things I can, where to go in the building, when I want to go to my room, choose if I want a shower. They listen to what I need and do it.”

Relatives reported feeling genuinely welcomed and valued. The service was attentive to cultural and individual needs, helping families feel confident their loved ones were safe and well cared for. One relative stated, “[Person] is totally safe here and well cared for. The owner is very respectful of the Plymouth Brethren. The home is close to us, and they have a proper understanding of the way we do things.”

Staff consistently enabled people to remain as independent as possible, encouraging participation in daily activities and supporting mobility. People described staff as thoughtful and proactive in helping them maintain autonomy, using aids and technology creatively to support independence. We heard, “I’ve always got a carer behind me. I like to go for a little walk to keep my legs going. I’ve got this walker to help me” and “I like to shower independently. When I go into the shower, they give me a pendant which I hang in a place where it doesn’t get wet.”

The service nurtured people’s wellbeing by supporting access to meaningful activities, opportunities, and experiences. Staff responded flexibly to people’s needs, enhancing quality of life. People told us, “The catering, food is very, very good. There is a good choice. If I have any problems with what’s on the menu, they will do it within half an hour.”

People were encouraged to stay active and connected to their surroundings and the wider community, exploring interests and building relationships. People told us, “I like to keep busy and don’t like getting confused. I like walking in the garden and countryside.” During the inspection, this person was observed independently making decisions about where to go and walking within the grounds, demonstrating how staff enabled independence while maintaining safety.

Care was delivered with genuine empathy and sensitivity to people’s choices, including support for end-of-life decisions. Staff displayed confidence and understanding in responding to people’s wishes across various scenarios. People told us “They [staff] are very good at supporting personal hygiene. The male carer often gives me a bath. I have a bath chair that goes up and down. He is very gentle and caring.” Privacy and dignity were consistently maintained, with people describing staff as respectful and attentive to their needs and boundaries. People told us “There is a tap-tap on my door and they say, ‘Can I come in?’ They listen when I ask for something. If I want to be quiet, I can be private in my room. They treat me with dignity all the time.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Call bell response times were monitored, people told us call bells were answered promptly and felt confident their concerns would be responded to appropriately. Comments included, “I am independent, but I do need help with some things, then I call them or they offer it,” and “They certainly listen, anything I ask them they will sort it out. If I’m not feeling well, they listen to me and help me.”

Staff respected people’s preferences and adapted care to suit individual needs. People were supported to make choices about how they wished to spend their time. For example, one person told us, “I like to eat here on my own, I don’t like eating with other people, so they bring my food here [lounge area].”

There was a flexible and responsive approach to meeting people’s immediate needs. People told us staff responded quickly to their requests. One person said, “Staff are always about. If I’m not feeling well or I’m worried I ring the bell and they get to me reasonably quickly.” Another person told us, “If I am feeling wobbly and wanted a poached egg, [name of carer] would get it for me.”

During the inspection, we observed staff responding promptly when people requested support. Although staff were busy, they made time to interact with people, offer reassurance and engage in meaningful conversations. This demonstrated a caring culture where people were not only supported with their needs but also valued as individuals.

Systems were in place to support staff to respond effectively to people’s needs, including care task alerts to ensure care was recorded in a timely way.

The provider demonstrated a commitment to promoting the wellbeing of their staff and supporting them to deliver person‑centred care.

Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and were able to ask questions or seek guidance when needed. They also told us they were supported to access further learning and development opportunities, which helped them build confidence and competence in their roles.

Staff received regular supervision, which provided opportunities to reflect on practice and discuss any concerns. Records showed where concerns were raised, these were acted upon by the management team. This supported staff to feel listened to and contributed to ongoing improvements in care delivery.

Team meetings were held where staff were encouraged to share their views and contribute ideas. Staff told us they were asked for feedback on what worked well, what could be improved and how response times could be enhanced. This demonstrated a culture where staff input was valued and used to inform service development.

At the time of the inspection, there was no formal system in place to routinely gather structured staff feedback. However, the provider showed us they had developed a staff survey and were in the process of implementing this. This demonstrated a commitment to strengthening engagement processes and improving how staff feedback is captured and acted upon.