The Spinney 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 remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and were 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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People consistently described staff as kind and caring. One person told us, “One staff member has been by my side since I have been here. They are really good to me.” People told us staff listened to them, took time when providing support and did not make them feel rushed. Our observations showed warm and respectful interactions between staff and people.

Relatives described staff as friendly, attentive and welcoming. They told us people appeared clean, appropriately dressed and comfortable. One relative told us, “Staff always address my family member by name." Another described staff arranging personal items and supporting their relative’s grooming and appearance.

A visiting professional described staff interactions with a person as kind, friendly, supportive and dignified. The professional observed that the person was clean, appropriately dressed, covered with a blanket when necessary and appeared happy and comfortable.

Staff understood how to protect people’s privacy and dignity. Staff knocked before entering bedrooms, closed doors and curtains during personal care and covered people appropriately to respect and preserve dignity. During our lunchtime observation, staff addressed people by their preferred names. Staff provided assistance discreetly and positioned themselves appropriately when supporting people to eat.

People, relatives and professionals provided consistent positive feedback about the way staff treated people. This demonstrated that respectful and compassionate care formed part of staff’s everyday practice.

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.

Staff gathered information about people’s histories, routines, interests, communication and the people important to them. They recorded this within care plans, “About Me” profiles and shared relevant changes during handovers. Most people and relatives told us staff knew them well and involved them when their preferences or needs changed.

Staff used their knowledge of people to personalise their interactions. For example, staff used one person’s history to support conversation and engagement during a one-to-one conversational activity. Although the person did not communicate extensively, discussing their favourite past time helped them respond, laugh and participate in the interaction. Staff arranged a television in another person’s bedroom so they could follow an important sporting event.

Staff adapted how they presented choices. During lunch, people were shown 2 plated meal options rather than being expected to choose from a verbal description. Staff offered alternatives when neither meal met the person’s preferences on the day. The lunchtime observation also indicated that cultural and religious dietary preferences were respected.

A visiting professional told us staff knew a non-verbal person very well, including their communication, preferences and family relationships. When leaders did not know specific information, they consulted staff who knew the person and were able to provide an accurate response.

The provider supported people to make many everyday choices but did not always maximise their independence, meaningful engagement and control over their daily lives.

Opportunities for meaningful activity, individual engagement, outdoor access and community involvement were inconsistent. Although the service had developed a one-to-one activity schedule containing creative, sensory, social and reminiscence activities, people’s feedback showed these opportunities were not always delivered consistently. Some people described limited staff-arranged activities, some relatives wanted people to have more opportunities to spend time outdoors and one relative felt their family member was lonely and would benefit from more conversation with staff. This increased the risk of boredom, loneliness and social isolation.

Following onsite feedback, the provider introduced further monitoring of activities and people’s experiences. This demonstrated a prompt response to the concerns raised. However, the arrangements were newly implemented, and the provider had not yet demonstrated that they resulted in sustained improvements to people’s independence, choice, engagement or wellbeing.

People generally had control over their personal care routines and where they spent their time. Relatives could visit at any time, and staff supported people to maintain contact with those important to them through visits and video calls. Leaders also described supporting outings to the garden centre, local park and town.

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.

Most people told us staff responded promptly when they required assistance. One person described the response to their call bell as, “very quick.” Another person told us, “Staff answer promptly and support me when I need it." A relative told us, “Staff members are always available, and staff respond to my family member’s call bell fairly promptly."

Staff knew people well and understood their usual presentation and communication. This helped them recognise when someone may be uncomfortable, distressed or required additional support. Staff shared changes in people’s needs through care records, handovers and electronic messages so colleagues working later shifts remained informed.

A visiting professional described the service as responsive and said staff knew people and their preferences very well. Relatives also gave examples of staff acting quickly when people’s needs changed or when they raised requests relating to people’s care.

During our lunchtime observation, staff provided discreet support and did not rush people who required assistance. They responded to people's needs in the moment.

However, people were seated for a considerable period before lunch was served and experienced a further delay between the main course and dessert. Some people expressed dissatisfaction with the waiting time. These delays reduced the quality of their dining experience and could have caused avoidable frustration or discomfort. Leaders acknowledged this feedback and were responsive to these concerns.

The provider did not always provide staff with the structured support needed to promote their wellbeing and enable them to deliver consistently person-centred care.

Staff had not received regular individual supervision. This meant they did not have planned and confidential opportunities to discuss their workload, performance, development or professional or personal concerns. It also limited leaders’ ability to identify when staff required additional support, agree development actions and monitor whether staff consistently applied their training. Following feedback, the provider introduced a structured one-to-one supervision record covering staff wellbeing, roles and responsibilities, people’s wellbeing, teamwork, training and development, staff feedback and agreed actions.

However, staff described positive, informal day-to-day support from the leaders. They told us leaders were approachable, kind and available when they needed advice. One staff member told us, “Leaders are kind to me,” and another described receiving, “lots of good support” from leaders. Staff felt able to raise concerns and said information about people was shared effectively so colleagues remained informed.

Leaders described an open-door approach, wellbeing checks and a staff wellbeing policy. They told us they signposted staff to additional support when required. Staff had access to online training and guidance to support them in their roles.

A staff member who had worked at the service for a considerable number of years, told us they liked working there. They had access to order resources they needed, received the supplies they required without challenge and had control over their own rota. This demonstrated practical support and autonomy within their role.