Archived: Hilbre Manor EMI Residential Care 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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service was in breach of the legal requirements in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 40 (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 have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The processes in place to provide a good learning culture were not effective. We did not see evidence of regular supervision for staff to ensure positive feedback was received and any shared learning provided

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Care plans lacked personalised information to ensure staff were aware of peoples likes and dislikes and their strengths and abilities. One person’s care plan stated they were unable to complete any activities of daily life due to [persons dementia. As people were not involved in their care planning, they were not able to express what support they required and how they would like that support to be implemented.

We observed some people’s bedrooms were personalised; however, we identified areas within people’s bedrooms that were dirty or damaged. We saw some peoples clothing not being folded or put away appropriately into their own wardrobes. The service provided bible studies once a week for those people who wish to attend. We observed relatives visiting the home and having positive interactions with staff.

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The processes in place to provide a good learning culture were not effective. We did not see evidence of regular supervision for staff to ensure positive feedback was received and any shared learning provided

The provider did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The processes in place to provide a good learning culture were not effective. We did not see evidence of regular supervision for staff to ensure positive feedback was received and any shared learning provided

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. There were mixed views in relation to the support from management, some staff told us the manager was approachable however, another staff member told us, “The communication is poor.” Processes such as supervision and appraisals did not consistently provide staff with opportunities to offer feedback, raise concerns, or suggest improvements for the service or their work environment.