Kite Hill 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 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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed staff treating people with kindness, empathy, and respect. Staff were observed supporting people to maintain their independence and make choices about their daily lives. We observed staff knocking on people’s doors and asking permission to enter people’s rooms. Staff interactions were warm and genuine, which supported the feedback we received from people.

Feedback from people included, “The staff are pretty good,” and “I wouldn’t want to be anywhere else, the carers are very caring and friendly, they know how I like things done and will always come and chat to me.”

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.

People told us they were given choice about the care they received. One person told us, “It’s always my choice, I can get up/go to bed when I want to and can have a bath/shower when I want one. Nothing is too much trouble- everything is perfect,” and “I don’t get told what to do, in a good way, it’s always my choice.”

Some care plans lacked information about people’s cultural needs, most people’s care plans contained a life history with details about where people were born, their family, employment and lifetime experiences. We reviewed 3 peoples emotional care plans and found that 1 person did not have a plan in place whilst the remaining 2 people did not have any information in relation to their cultural and religious beliefs.

One person had an authorised Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) with conditions in place to support their rights, wishes and religious beliefs. The home had not met all of these conditions to ensure the person had access to be able to fully practice their faith.

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

During the inspection, we observed people doing things for themselves where possible. This included eating and drinking and walking around the home using a Zimmer frame, with support from staff if needed.

Relatives told us their loved ones were encouraged to join activities and spoke positively about the activities coordinator. We observed activities taking place in the communal areas where people looked engaged and very happy. Relatives were able to come to the home freely and there were no restrictions on visiting hours. This enabled people to maintain relationships and avoid feeling isolated.

The provider listened to people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People said staff responded well if they experienced any problems or concerns.Comments included, “They usually come quickly if I need them,” “I’m never kept waiting, they are always here when I need them, it couldn’t be any better” and “The staff usually answer the call bell quickly.”

During our inspection, we observed call bells were being answered promptly and staff responding to people’s immediate needs throughout the day. However, feedback from some relatives indicated that this was not consistent. Relatives described delays in responding to call bells and toileting needs and raised concerns about staff competency when using moving and handling equipment.

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

The provider told us they had a range of measures to support staff wellbeing, including supportive rota arrangements, paid breaks, staff recognition initiatives and support for staff experiencing mental health difficulties.

 Some staff we spoke with confirmed this. One staff member told us, “The acting manager and my normal manager have been fantastic supporting me with my [wellbeing].”