Hadfield 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 as 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.

The registered manager and staff were observed engaging in various positive interactions with people, relatives and professionals throughout the onsite inspection.

Staff told us all staff treated people with compassion, dignity and respect. One staff member said, “I would have family live here yes, they are a good staff group and treat all residents as family.”

People and relatives felt they or their loved ones were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity in their day-to day care and support. One person said, "I find all of the staff to be nice and they do care. You have to be that way to do this job properly.” A relative said, “Staff do tend to make time to chat with [person] and we have had some laughs with them over the years. They are like friends now.”

External professionals told us the care home treated them with kindness. One professional stated, “I have always been treated professionally, respectfully and made to feel welcome by both staff and management.”

However, observations completed during the onsite inspection did indicate more interaction between staff and people during mealtimes was required.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds.

Peoples care plans and risk assessments did not always accurately reflect changes in need and updates to these needed to be timelier. Staff did not always have clear guidance on how to support people safely. The provider had an action plan and was in the process of reviewing all risk assessments and care plans to ensure information was personalised, accurate and that staff had clear guidance to support people safely.

The care records focused on care tasks and failed to identify what mattered to the person, including aspirations and goals for the future.

People’s cultural and religious needs were documented. However, we were not assured these were always considered in practice. For example, in making reasonable adjustments for a resident, all meat purchased was now Halal. However, the provider was unable to evidence all other residents being informed of this.

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 had choice and control over what they did. A person said, “I can have a shower when I want one. I choose what to wear each day.” Another person said, “I decide what to wear, nobody here tells me what I should be wearing. They always ask my permission before helping me as well.”

Staff told us they promoted people to be as independent as possible. They emphasised the importance of encouraging people to complete tasks and activities for themselves, when possible.

The provider ensured there were regular activities at the service. The activities coordinator ensured people had access to activities such as quizzes, bingo and baking cakes. There were opportunities for people to come together to engage in such activities if they wished. Those who were unable to attend or did not wish to engage, were visited by the activities coordinator who would have one to one conversations instead.

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 were alert to people’s immediate needs, although documentation within care records needed improvement. During the onsite inspection, a member of staff identified a person was short of breath and raised this with a senior member of staff and the registered manager who responded immediately.

A person’s health had deteriorated recently. The provider had taken the appropriate steps in identifying the person’s decline and had contacted the district nurse who had come to visit the person on multiple occasions and provided their professional opinion.

Senior staff had also arranged an appointment with a suitable medical professional to review their current health needs following a decline in their mental health needs.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Recently, the provider had changed the rotas following a concern which was raised. Most staff who communicated with us verbally or via questionnaires, stated how they were unhappy with the changes and did not feel supported by the provider. One staff member stated, “I feel supported by my manager, but not higher management. For example, there have been recent shift changes, and the staff have tried to make them aware and the negative impact on our residents but feel we haven’t been listened to or supported.” The same member of staff, amongst various others, also stated that since the changes, they rarely managed to have a break whilst on shift.

Staff stated how there were not opportunities to speak up in team meetings as these did not take place regularly. One staff member said, “I think there has only been one (team meeting) in the last 12 months and the main topic was the change in rota. All discussions around this just got shut down.”

The wellbeing of staff was not fully explored as supervisions, appraisals, staff surveys and team meetings were not regularly taking place.

Despite this, most staff told us they felt able to raise points, unrelated to their new shift patterns, with the registered manager. Furthermore, from conversations held with staff, it was clear the provider seemed to retain staff and there were some opportunities for staff to develop.