Inglefield Nursing & Residential 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 remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

People and relatives consistently described staff as caring, compassionate, and respectful. Observations confirmed staff interacted positively with people, respected privacy, and supported individual preferences.

This service scored 70 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy, and compassion, while respecting their privacy and dignity. People and relatives consistently reported positive experiences, describing staff as attentive and caring.

People highlighted the warmth and support of staff. A person said, “We have some lovely laughs and giggles together,” and another told us, “They do all they can to keep me well.” People also confirmed they were always treated respectfully, with one saying, “They’ve never been rude to me, never treated me without respect.”

Relatives praised staff attentiveness and engagement. A relative said, “There are some wonderful carers there,” another relative commented, “When you go in you are welcomed. The staff always ask me how I am.”

We carried out observations which confirmed staff treated people with dignity and compassion. Interactions were consistently respectful and supportive, demonstrating a culture of kindness and respect throughout the service.

The provider treated people as individuals and ensured care, support, and treatment met their needs and preferences. Staff considered people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture, and protected characteristics when planning and delivering care.

People’s bedrooms and environments reflected their interests and hobbies. A person had a gardening board in their room to reflect their love of gardening. Staff supported cultural and religious practices, including 2 people who received Holy Communion regularly, with care plans detailing how these needs should be met.

We observed staff delivering care in line with individual preferences, showing attentiveness and respect. People confirmed staff understood and treated them as individuals. A person told us, “They approach each person individually,” and another person commented, “They know me and I know them. I’m claustrophobic, so they make sure doors are open for me.” A third person living with sight impairment said, “Staff are pretty good at putting things in places so I can find them.”

The environment had been enhanced in some areas to support a dementia-friendly approach. Landmarks and visual cues helped people with cognitive impairment navigate safely. Some corridors and communal areas had been personalised, and a wall of remembrance provided a meaningful touch, supporting people’s sense of identity and wellbeing.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, and people did not always have full choice and control over their care, treatment, and wellbeing. Staff applied regular welfare checks and monitored food and fluid intake for all people, regardless of individual risk. These blanket approaches were not always proportionate and limited people’s autonomy and ability to make decisions about their own daily lives.

Despite this, staff encouraged independence wherever possible. People were supported to go outdoors, participate in activities, and manage aspects of their meals and daily routines. A person said, “If I want to go outside somebody would take me.”

Relatives confirmed staff respected personal preferences. A relative said, “She doesn’t like gravy poured over her meal, so they bring her own jug of gravy,” and another relative noted, “They encourage him to do what he can.” These examples demonstrated that staff considered individual preferences in daily routines. These examples showed staff recognised individual preferences, although this was not consistently reflected across all aspects of care.

We observed staff interactions that supported engagement and involvement. However, this was not always underpinned by personalised systems. Care plans described people’s day-to-day needs, preferences, routines, hobbies, interests, and important relationships, including known partners and how these relationships should be supported. In practice, not all documented preferences translated into individualised approaches that maximised choice and independence. While staff demonstrated a commitment to supporting independence and involvement in daily decisions, systems and processes required further development to ensure care was consistently tailored to individual risk, preference, and desired levels of personal control.

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

Staff responded quickly to individual concerns and requests. For example, 1 person became unsettled after misplacing an item of clothing; staff reassured them and helped locate the item before distress escalated.

Call bells and verbal requests were generally answered promptly, and staff demonstrated understanding of people’s needs. We observed staff interpreting cues from people who were non-verbal and responding appropriately, ensuring timely support.

People confirmed staff were responsive. A person said, “They come as quickly as they can,” another person noted, “Perhaps they aren’t available immediately, but they don’t keep you waiting long,” and a third person told us, “If I need something, I just press the bell.”

Staff demonstrated attentiveness, responsiveness, and sensitivity, ensuring people’s immediate needs were met effectively.

The provider promoted staff wellbeing and supported staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff were enabled to work effectively through wellbeing initiatives, guidance, and a supportive management approach.

Staff wellbeing was supported through structured initiatives and resources. For example, we saw evidence that the wellbeing champion maintained correspondence with staff during difficult times, providing guidance and emotional support. In the staff room, a wellbeing board displayed strategies to manage mental health, and managers carried out return-to-work discussions to ensure staff felt supported following absence.

Staff development and recognition were embedded in practice. Supervisions and appraisals were completed regularly, supporting growth and competence. Staff were recognised for contributions through monthly staff awards, with nominations from people using the service, relatives, and colleagues. Winners received certificates and prizes, and a yearly awards ceremony further celebrated staff achievements and engagement.

The service fostered a positive, inclusive culture. Staff involvement in personal and community initiatives, such as celebrating a colleague’s baby shower with people using the service, supported connection and morale. Staff feedback confirmed this supportive culture: “Staff are encouraged to share ideas and concerns,” “I feel very proud to work here… it’s like living with a big family,” and “Working at Inglefield has been a great experience, and all the staff are very helpful and supportive.”