Gloucester 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated caring as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

Staff treated people with compassion and kindness. They respected peoples’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of people and supported them to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved people in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

The service was good at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organizations with kindness and respect.

During observation of people’s care, we saw staff demonstrate compassionate and kindness in their interactions with residents and colleagues. Care was delivered in a way that protected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff showed empathy and sensitivity to resident’s individual experiences. This culture of respect was embedded throughout the service and consistently observed during our assessment.

The service encouraged lasting therapeutic relationships which extended beyond discharge. Former residents returned to volunteer and support current people, and some returned to attend annual social events. Staff described supporting people to achieve qualifications which enabled them to progress with education and employment. This demonstrated the services commitment to promoting long term recovery and meaningful outcomes beyond treatment.

Feedback from people who had accessed the service consistently reflected the compassionate culture observed during our assessment. All of the people we spoke to gave positive feedback about staff. They described staff as kind and respectful, with one resident telling us the service had “saved my life”.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards people without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about people accessing the service

The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

Any adjustments required to support people to engage fully with the treatment programme were considered during initial assessments. We saw examples of staff using assistive technology to support communication with people whose first language was not English. Staff explained how they accessed an interpreter when required.

Information was provided to people on treatments, local services, and how to complain. The accommodation had lots of information displayed on noticeboards.

A chaplain was available five days a week. Staff training in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights compliance rate was 100%.

Staff empowered people to understand and manage their care, treatment and recovery. All people had a core support worker. They held regular one to one sessions, tailored support to meet individual needs, and remained accessible 24 hours a day.

The main accommodation and treatment facilities were located across several buildings and floors. The provider had completed a disability access assessment, but the main building was listed and could not be adapted for wheelchair users. However, staff signposted people to other suitable services when they were unable to meet their needs. In addition to the bedrooms in the main house, there were also four bedrooms in a bungalow which were more easily accessible. The bungalow had its own bathroom and kitchen facilities and was located much closer to the staff office. These rooms were allocated to people who would find it difficult to climb stairs or who had been risk assessed as needing to be closer to the staff office.

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

The service offered a structured 12-week treatment model that all people accessing the service were expected to follow. People were made aware of this during the referral process and admission to the service. Staff were able to adapt activities to ensure that they were appropriate for people, particularly in circumstances where engaging may have caused heightened distress.

People were encouraged to give feedback on the service, and ‘You Said, We Did’ posters were visible in communal areas alongside photographs of people engaging in groups that had been run because of feedback.

People accessing the service had free time during the weekends and were able to access additional activities.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimize any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff holistically assessed people’s needs prior to admission, and on arrival if they needed any additional clothing, toiletries, or essentials, staff would provide these. Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues immediately, such as physical or mental health concerns, and care planned for these accordingly.

As a part of people’s treatment plan, they were expected to attend groups each day, which provided an opportunity for assessing and meeting needs. Staff met with people at regular intervals and there was ongoing review of individuals daily wellbeing. Any change in need was responded to in a timely manner.

Staff told us that they felt confident in supporting people experiencing distress, and in using de-escalation techniques.

Where staff identified escalating risk, they utilised handovers and team meetings to discuss and escalate concerns appropriately and access additional support that people may need.

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

Staff at the service told that us they felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt very positive and proud about working for the service. The staff team worked together to support each other. Managers at the service were available to discuss any issues staff had and all staff had access to the managers contact details.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an employee assistance programme and occupational health service. Staff said they felt able to suggest improvements to managers and were encouraged to do so. The chaplain offered support for staff and people who used the service.

The service’s staff sickness and absence over the past 12 months was low, and staff and leaders collaboratively ensured work was covered.

Staff appraisals included discussion about staff wellbeing and development and how this could be supported, and several staff had received funding for additional training in complementary therapies.