Fryers House - Care Home with Nursing Physical Disabilities

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.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Enough improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 75 (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 consistently treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People told us that overall, staff were kind, respectful and attentive to their needs. People spoke positively about how staff interacted with them and said they felt listened to and valued. They confirmed their privacy and dignity were respected. Comments included, “They treat me as a human being”, “They don’t stand over me, they’ll sit down and talk to me on my level” and “The staff who are here are absolutely lovely, they know what I need and provide it for me.”

At the last assessment, we observed limited interaction and missed opportunities for engagement. At this assessment, we observed consistently positive interactions between staff and people. Staff took time to spend with people, engaged in conversation and regularly checked on people’s wellbeing. We observed staff listening to people and responding appropriately to what they said, and staff supporting people in ways that promoted their dignity and comfort. For example, during mealtimes staff supported people at their own pace, communicated clearly, and paid attention to people’s dignity, such as wiping people’s mouths between mouthfuls when required. Staff explained what they were doing before supporting people.

Staff demonstrated a person‑centred, caring approach in their day‑to‑day interactions. This helped ensure people felt respected, involved and supported in a way that upheld their dignity and wellbeing.

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.

People told us they felt involved in their care planning and said staff listened to them and acted on what mattered to them. People also said they felt in control of their care and support and described this as an improvement compared to their previous experiences. People confirmed staff treated them as individuals and respected their preferences, needs and choices. One person told us, “They know my preferences and will give options based on them.”

At the last assessment, we found care records did not always reflect people’s individual needs and preferences. At this assessment, we found this had improved. People’s care plans were up to date and showed increasing personalisation. Although personalisation was still being embedded, records included clear information about how people preferred to be supported, including personal care routines and moving and handling preferences, such as which side staff should approach from. This helped staff provide care in ways that respected people’s comfort, dignity and individual preferences.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People told us they were supported to make choices about their daily lives and said staff respected their preferences. One person told us, “I really feel they are helping me to be as independent as I can be.” Another person told us, “They talk to me about goals, but I don’t want deadlines; staff respect that.”

People confirmed they could have visitors when they wanted and said there were no restrictions on visiting, which supported people to maintain relationships and social connections.

Since the last assessment, the provider had taken steps to better identify and respond to people’s goals and wishes. Although these discussions and actions were not always fully reflected in people’s care records, evidence showed staff and leaders supported people in practice to work towards their wishes and promote independence. For example, 1 person had been supported to get an electric wheelchair they could operate independently, increasing their autonomy. Another person was supported through environmental changes to better meet their preferences, including the creation of a more comfortable and accessible smoking area.

At the time of the assessment, renovation work was underway. People told us leaders had actively involved them in planning these changes, including ideas for a café‑style communal area and a quiet cinema space designed to meet sensory and comfort needs. This demonstrated the provider took people’s views seriously and acted on feedback to improve shared spaces.

We observed people participating in activities of their choice during the assessment, including group activities where staff participated alongside them, such as karaoke. People told us staff supported them to access the community and spend time doing things that mattered to them.

While systems for documenting, tracking and reviewing people’s goals were still developing, we found the provider was actively addressing this. Records showed increasing personalisation, and staff demonstrated they supported people in practice to work towards their goals, resulting in tangible improvements in independence, choice and control.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

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

Staff told us things had improved since the last assessment, particularly in relation to the support and visibility of leaders within the service. Staff described the manager and onsite leaders as accessible, approachable and willing to listen. Staff said they felt more included and involved, and we saw evidence of this during the assessment. Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and share ideas and said leaders at service level responded positively. The manager told us they recognised communication with the wider senior leadership team was an area to strengthen and described how they were working to improve this.

The manager explained how they had focused on improving the culture of the service, responding to feedback that staff had previously not always felt supported or involved. The manager introduced ad‑hoc group discussions to encourage reflection, shared learning and staff involvement in service improvements. Staff feedback reflected this approach; staff told us they felt listened to, valued and supported to contribute to positive change.

The provider supported staff wellbeing through more consistent supervision arrangements and ongoing support. While regular supervision was still becoming established at the time of the assessment, staff confirmed the provider had scheduled sessions and used a combination of formal supervisions and informal discussions. Staff said this support helped them feel more confident, supported and listened to.

The provider also supported staff development. The manager described how they encouraged staff to develop professionally and take greater ownership in areas of interest, such as medicines management, activities or supporting people to achieve personal goals. While these interests were still being developed and not yet formalised, this demonstrated a commitment to empowering staff and supporting development.

Overall, we found leaders had strengthened staff support, engagement and enablement at service level, which contributed to improved staff morale and supported more consistent, person‑centred care delivery.