Hope Green Residential Home Also known as 1-1244000026

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

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 meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or 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 always 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 speaking to people respectfully and people told us staff were caring and friendly. A person told us, “The staff are very kind. Not a false kind.”

The provider supported people as individuals and aimed to ensure their care and treatment met their needs and preferences. They considered each person’s strengths, background, culture, and personal characteristics. For example, an interpreter was arranged so one person could fully take part in Catholic Mass at the home. people were supported by staff who knew them well and provided support in line with how they knew people liked to be cared for.

The provider did not consistently promote people’s independence, meaning individuals were not always aware of their rights or supported to have choice and control over their care, treatment, and wellbeing. It was not always clear how people were encouraged to make daily decisions, such as when and how they received personal care or which activities they wished to take part in. One person said, “I’ve asked for a haircut several times, but nothing has been arranged.” Care plans lacked clear guidance for staff on how to support and maintain people’s independence.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views, and wishes. However, staff did not always respond to people’s needs in a timely manner. Call bells were within reach of people, however, there were delays in staff responding to them quickly. One person told us, “I use the buzzer for the toilet or to see the nurse and they are not that quick in coming. It can be ages before they come.” We raised this with the provider, and they acted swiftly by allocating a staff member on each shift to be responsible for answering call bells within the provider’s target time. At the time of the assessment, the provider did not have effective systems in place to monitor call bell response times. However, steps had been taken to address this, including work to implement a system that would enable more efficient monitoring.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. However, there was a new management team in post and staff were not yet fully supported through this change, The new manager was working closely with staff individually to build trust and change the culture to a positive one. However, we received mixed feedback. A staff member told us, “You can see that the new manager and deputy are doing the right thing, following procedure. Sometimes the atmosphere can be rough, and you are made to feel you haven’t done a good job.” Another staff member told us, “[Management] are very supportive, we have structure now on how we work. It was difficult when we didn’t have a manager in place.”