Handford House 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

At our last assessment the provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to how people were supported in a person-centred way. At this assessment we found the provider was no longer in breach of regulation. Improvements had been made in people’s care plans which were now person centred and people and relatives were being consulted about the care provided and planned for.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. Whilst staff respected people’s privacy, further work was needed to reduce the risk of other people entering people’s bedrooms. Ongoing work was being done to improve the laundry service to ensure people received and wore their own clothing.

This service scored 70 (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. Whilst staff respected people’s privacy, further attention needed to be given to other people entering their personal space. We received some feedback from relatives which indicated people’s dignity was not always respected.

During our last assessment, the management team told us how they were making improvements in the laundry system. We received some feedback that identified people received their own clothing to wear. However, we also received feedback from 3 relatives which stated their family members had been wearing other people’s clothing, and some of their family member’s clothing had gone missing, despite it all being labelled. The management team told us they asked relatives to review lost property to check if their family members clothing was in there, and they had received feedback that it had improved. They said it would be raised again in relative meetings.

People’s privacy was being respected, for example, staff knocked on people’s bedroom doors before entering and people’s doors were closed when staff were providing support. However, we noted a person was sitting and sleeping in another person’s bedroom whilst they were sleeping. We pointed this out to staff, who tried to encourage the person to leave the other person’s bedroom to ensure their privacy.

People told us the staff treated them with kindness and respect, this was confirmed by people’s relatives. One person told us, “[Staff] are very gentle and kind.” A relative said, “[Staff] all know my [family member] by name and are very respectful and friendly.”

During our assessment we saw staff interacting with people in a respectful manner, this included speaking to them with kindness and positioning themselves at eye level to aid effective communication.

The provider 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.

Since our last assessment, improvements had been made in people’s care plans, they were now person centred and reflected people’s specific needs and how they were being met. Records were maintained to show the care provided on a daily basis to people to meet their individual needs.

Improvements had been made in consultation with people and their relatives relating to the care provided and their care plans, which had improved and were person centred. People’s comments were documented which showed their choices and preferences were being respected. People’s care plans included people’s preferred form of address and we saw this being used by staff. We observed staff playing music which a person liked, which made them smile. This demonstrated the staff knew the person well. Work was ongoing in the development of people’s life stories with input from people and their relatives, to give staff an insight into the person and their background.

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

People’s care plans included the specific equipment they used to support their independence, including equipment used to eat and drink.

People’s care plans now demonstrated they were involved in the planning of their care, including when monthly reviews were taking place. People were asked how they were and if there were any impacts on them, for example, with their health.

People told us they chose to do what they wanted, including when they went to bed and got up in the morning, and this was respected by staff.

Meetings attended by people who used the service were held, where their views were sought, relating to, for example, meals and activities. Where suggestions were made, these were valued and used to improve the service. For example, a small area on the ground floor had previously been used to display a memory tree, people had said it reminded them that they would be on there one day. Therefore, people were involved in what the area would be used for, it had been changed to a small seating area with books. The manager told us some people sat in the chair and watched what was happening.

People’s care plans included information of the areas of their care they could attend to independently and this was being promoted and encouraged. We saw staff encouraging people’s choice and independence, including during mealtimes. People had access to individual gravy jugs so they could choose what was on their plate, rather than it being poured by staff before it was served. People told us they had a choice of food, however, 1 person said they had said they did not like a specific vegetable, but this continued to be served to them. There had been some work undertaken to check what meal portion size people preferred to be served, however, 1 person told us they felt they were being provided with too large a portion.

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.

Since our last assessment, the provider had monitored call bell response times to ensure people were receiving the care they needed in a timely way. In addition, the manager and management team checked the service provided, including listening to people’s views. Meetings attended by people using the service were held, and also meetings for relatives. Comments were valued and used to drive improvement. Where people had raised concerns about the approach of staff, such as during the night, this was looked into and staff advised of the expectations of their role.

People and staff told us they had seen improvements in staff availability; however, we did receive some information where people had to wait for the support they required. A person told us while staff responded to their call bells, they sometimes left and did not return. We saw staff meeting minutes where staff were advised they must tell people when they would return and do this.

During our visits we saw staff were attentive to people’s needs and responded to requests for assistance promptly.

Some people required the support of 1 – 1 staff for safety, this was provided by regular agency staff. A staff member told us there was an instance where a staff member had not turned up for work, leaving 2 people to share the 1 – 1 staff. However, we could not identify this in the staff rota and discussions with the registered manager showed an agency staff had attended late, they showed us evidence where the agency had been contacted and measures put in place to reduce future risks. A person told us they usually got the same 1 – 1 staff support and they got on with them well.

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

Since our last assessment, improvements had been made and staff were now receiving 1 to 1 supervision meetings, which provided a forum to receive feedback and discuss any concerns they had. The monitoring of staff training was in place which ensured staff were receiving the training they needed to meet people’s needs.

Staff meetings were held where staff were advised of their roles and responsibilities and also had to the opportunity to discuss the service provided.

On the second floor, where the staff room and training room were, there was information about how staff could access support both within and outside of the home. Notices were posted on sexual harassment and how to report. Staff surveys were undertaken and in the staff room a ‘you said we did’ notice was in place demonstrating actions taken following staff comments.

Whilst the majority of staff we received feedback from, told us they felt listened to and supported, some staff told us they felt the culture of the service required improvement. The manager told us the culture of the service had improved and these improvements were ongoing. There had been a turnover of staff with the change of management and where staff required support with the changes and to improve their performance this was being done. A staff member told us, “I feel that staff concerns are listened to and considered seriously, with appropriate decisions made in response. This creates a positive and supportive workplace culture."