Higher Bank

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 changed to requires improvement. This generally meant people were not always appropriately supported and treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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 and staff generally treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Professionals told us people were treated with kindness and compassion. One professional said, “Staff seem to treat people with the utmost kindness and compassion.” People felt staff treated them with kindness and respect. One person said, "Oh yes. They are (kind and caring).”

Staff spoke about how they treat people with kindness, compassion and dignity. One staff member said, “I think peopleare looked after.I look after people like they are my grandma and grandpa.”

The provider treated people as individuals, though staff knowledge in this area could have been improved. Further work was needed to ensure they took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations and backgrounds.

Our observations showed that whilst some interactions with people were considerate this was not always consistent.

Staff feedback around how well they knew people was mixed. One staff member said, “(I) Would not know about (people’s) personallife as I would never ask this question.Most people have dementia so theywouldn’tbe able to tell me.” Whilst another staff member said “The careis good.I would be happy for a loved one to come here.”

The service ensured peoples religious beliefs were detailed in their care plans. During our walk around, we observed that people’s bedrooms were personalised with their chosen items such as photos and belongings important to them. Professionals feedback told us how people were treated as individuals. One professional said, “I feel that people are treated as individuals, and individual likes/dislikes and preferences are taken into consideration. There is a ‘family’ culture with the residents.”

People felt staff communicated with them effectively during their day-to-day care and support and treated them as individuals.

It was difficult to determine if the provider promoted people’s independence or if enough/appropriate activities were being provided. People knew their rights and had some choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The home employed an activities coordinator, who worked two days a week. It was difficult to determine whether activities were carried out regularly as some people and their relatives said they did not want to engage in activities, and photographs provided appeared to be historic.

We observed people playing snakesand ladders with the board on the floor, and people were throwing dice on the floor. Staff had not considered that due to people’s limited mobility, this would have been more appropriate to be played onatable.

People felt they got to make everyday choices. One person said, "Yes, I choose my clothes." People were supported to maintain relationships with their loved ones and families could visit when they wanted and take their loved one out.

Staff spoke about how they tried to encourage people’s independence. One staff member said, “We try and encourage people to beindependent with food,dietand mobility.” One staff member said of activities, “Care staff tryand doactivities every day.”Weasked whatactivity was taking place thisafternoon, (staff member) said “I will tryand doone,but Iam busy today.”

The provider generally listened to people’s needs, but we were not assured they always understood people’s needs. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment and on occasion needed prompting.

Our observations provided mixed feedback on how staff responded to people’s needs. When staff were aware of issues they did act swiftly. However, we did have to raise some issues relating to people’s care that staff had not noticed or responded to. People and relatives felt staff listened to them.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff feedback about wellbeing was positive. One staff member said, “They don’t just look after residents, they look after staff as well. It is like one family.” Various policies were in place to support staff wellbeing.

Staff were able to raise concerns in various ways should they have any and through various channels. Staff health was considered as part of the recruitment process though completion of health questionnaires, this helped the service accommodate any reasonable adjustments staff needed.