Highbury Nursing 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

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 respect people’s privacy and dignity. However, clinical and care staff always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. The provider had not considered people’s privacy when installing CCTV in the care home without their consent.

People told us they were treated with kindness and spoke positively about the care team. One person told us, “The staff are friendly and helpful… they are absolutely brilliant.” Another person said, “The staff are kind and caring. They are chatty.” Relatives we spoke with also praised the care team. One relative said, “I give the staff 100%, they are amazing.” Another relative said, “The staff are polite, they go above and beyond what they need to do because of the people they are.”

We saw staff knocking and waiting to be invited in before entering people’s rooms. Staff told us about the ways in which they respected people’s privacy and dignity. For example, one staff member told us, “I choose the right time and place to talk.”

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

People’s care plans included information gathered about their life history, culture and background. Everyone had a poster on the wall in their bedroom which included a picture of the person and key information about them. It also included information important to the person about their care. For example, 1 poster explained that the person did not like physical touch. This helped staff who did not know people well understand quickly what was important to them as individuals.

People told us they felt staff knew them well and understood their needs. People told us they were supported to have meals which were culturally appropriate to them and reflected their preferences. One person told us, “If I want something different [than the options for the day] they will do it for me.”

The provider’s systems had not always demonstrated the promotion of choices for people.

Capacity assessments and best interests’ decisions were not conducted in line with MCA 2005 guidance. Each person had only 1 generic capacity assessment. This meant the detail of what specific decisions people could and could not make was sometimes limited or lacking. The possibility of fluctuating capacity impacting on specific aspects of care had not always been considered. This left people at risk of inappropriate restrictions to their choices about daily care. However, we did see examples of people’s independence being promoted. For example, we saw people were provided with adaptive plates, cups and cutlery which enabled them to eat without support. Personal care guidance for staff encouraged them to support people to do what they could for themselves to promote independence.

People told us they were happy about the access they had to visitors. We also saw a device had been purchased to enable people whose friends or relatives could not easily visit to meet with them virtually. We saw some people engaging in activities. These included arts and crafts and games. Some people told us they enjoyed taking part in the activities on offer, whilst others said they chose not to get involved. However, those who did not get involved did not express any dissatisfaction with their opportunities for social engagement or tell us about activities they wanted to take part in which were not available. A programme of suggested activities was available to show people and relatives what was planned.

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.

Records showed that when people had the need for emergency health care, it was usually identified and responded to quickly. Records also showed when people had accidents, nurses took and recorded appropriate observations to monitor them. People’s care plans included specific instructions about how they would like to be cared for in the event of a medical emergency. Staff were able to tell us about the ways in which they would recognise a person was feeling unwell or in pain if they could not communicate this verbally.

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

The registered manager spoke with pride about the staff team. They told us about ways they had introduced to recognise the positive contributions and hard work of the team. Staff could be nominated for recognition and awards.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported by the management team. One staff member told us, “I enjoy my role and feel supported.” Records showed staff received regular supervision and training. This helped to ensure they developed safe and effective care practices.