Mulberry 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service continued to be in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion, staff respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. One person said, “The staff here are kind, I get along with them all.” Another said, “I like living here, I get along with everyone.”

The provider did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. People met with their keyworkers monthly to discuss goals and aspirations; however, we found this lacked detail about how people would be supported to achieve them. Goals were not specific or measurable to enable the provider to fully review progress and make any changes as needed to support people to achieve their goals.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

For example, one person said, “I like cooking, but I do not go into the kitchen as it is always locked. I made cakes at the last place but haven't done it here. Made a Korma when I first moved in and that’s it.” We raised this with the provider who told us this was due to risks identified with the person. There was no evidence this risk had been assessed or that it was in the persons best interests to be denied access to the kitchen. Another person said, “The kitchen is always shut “. Locking the kitchen denied all other people in the service access to the kitchen. This meant people had their independence, choice and control taken away from them.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We identified an incident where a health condition had deteriorated significantly, placing them at risk of harm. The provider failed to seek appropriate medical advice promptly until directed to by inspectors.

Staff told us they were happy working in the service. Many staff had worked in the service for a long time. They told us they felt supported by the management team and felt able to raise any concerns with them.