Prospect 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 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.

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 told us that the staff “are kind and look after me well,” that “they have manners and say please and thank you,” and staff “are kind and caring.”

A relative said, “The staff are all kind, they are brilliant and update me. I can’t say a bad thing about anyone.”

Feedback from partner organisations was positive about how they are treated by staff and management during visits to the service.

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.

Everyone was treated as an individual by staff and management; we saw all the people living at the service were involved in a range of activities of their own choosing. Care and support plans were personalised, co-produced with people as much as possible and particularly strong when explaining people’s preferences regarding communication method. Most people had close family members that communicated on an ongoing basis with the provider with others having access to advocacy services.

Some people preferred a routine, and this was respected, whereas others responded well to new or different suggestions when it came to nutrition, activities, or plans. Each person was treated as an individual by the care team, with handover notes between shifts completed and understood well.

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

People had the freedom to go where they wanted throughout the service, accompanied by staff if appropriate to their needs. We observed this as people chose what to do and when to do it. Another person told us that they enjoyed going shopping as often as possible, so this was supported.

Relatives said they would like to see more of a schedule of activities in the future, however some also said that they appreciated the current flexibility around respecting people’s wishes on any day. It was noted that access to transport had been an issue at some times and led to occasional disappointment when a planned activity did not take place due to this. It was recognised this was caused by a combination of factors including the need to balance staff support for all people while others went out and a lack of accessible transport at times.

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.

Staff supported people and responded to immediate needs well, particularly during the day.

People told us, “There is a lot of staff”, but relatives had mixed views on this, reflecting that they had more confidence in the service’s ability to respond to people’s immediate needs during the daytime. Relatives also had concerns about arrangements for cover at times when regular staff were on leave.

One relative said, “I adore and applaud the staff, but I have to be truthful.”

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

Staff were open and honest when speaking to us and felt safe expressing themselves. Staff feedback was positive about the current management team, saying that they were easy to talk to, listened to people and were open to suggestions for improvement. Some people lacked confidence to speak up for personal reasons but told us that they understood what they could do if they needed to.

Much of the staff team had worked for the provider for a year or less and shared how they had been involved in meetings exploring improvement and innovation. Staff could take protected time to undertake training and development in a dedicated training space.