Haddon House Nursing 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 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.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff were warm, friendly and respectful in their interactions with people. We observed staff smiling and engaging with people in a reassuring manner, with appropriate and good-natured banter used. People appeared comfortable in the presence of staff. Staff supported people to maintain their dignity in a sensitive and discreet way. Feedback from relatives also confirmed staff treated people with kindness, one relative shared, ‘[Staff] are very caring and respectful of them all.” And “A couple of the staff are extraordinary. You can tell that they genuinely want to be there.”

The provider treated people as individuals. They considered people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff knew people’s personal backgrounds, life histories and interests. Records reflected this detailed information and referenced unique details about people. For example, one person’s care plan stated they were well known for their big smile. People’s personal spaces were decorated with items important to them, such as photos and ornaments. One relative told us, “Staff know a lot about our history, our lives together.” Some events and culturally relevant celebrations were held, such as victory in Europe day.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People did not always have full control over their day-to-day care. For example, one person was still in their nightwear at 12:30pm because of competing priorities for staff. We received some feedback that the decision to stop using a communal lounge had impacted on those who preferred to spend their time in a quieter environment. The new manager agreed to review this.

However, people and relatives confirmed some efforts were made to promote independence. One told us, “They say [person] likes to help to wash the pots.” And “[Person] is encouraged to do things for themselves.” People were supported to maintain relationships and networks that are important to them.

The activities team were enthusiastic and encouraged people to get involved in a varied activities programme. This included an interactive table for games, visiting therapy dogs and a summer fayre. We received positive feedback on the activities team. One relative shared, “Yes [person] enjoys the activities. They are very good.” And “The events team are amazing; they try to get [person] involved in everything.” Another told us, “They have a co-ordinator, they bring the dog in and they do colouring in.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

During our first site visit, as some communal lounges were left unsupervised this limited staff’s ability to respond promptly to requests for support. During our second site visit, as there were faults in the call bell system, this also limited staff’s ability to respond promptly to requests for support. The provider took action to address these issues. One staff told us repositioning and other care tasks can be delayed because of high demand, staff availability or equipment availability. Staff needed to record care notes on tablets placed around the service, staff told us this sometimes led to competing demands between record keeping and providing prompt care. The provider confirmed a new electronic care records system was in the process of being implemented, which would reduce this demand on staff.

We observed some staff respond to people’s needs in the moment in a calm, compassionate and dignified manner. For example, requests for drinks or to go to the toilet. Relatives also felt staff generally understood their loved one’s needs, one relative shared “I think they do, yes. They do talk to [person] and calm them down.”

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.

Staff morale was low. Staff shared they felt criticised, and there was insufficient recognition of the challenges they faced. Whilst there were some basic support systems in place, such as an open-door policy and team meetings, staff did not always feel confident leaders promoted an open or supportive environment. The new manager confirmed they would be working to address staff morale and had started to meet with the staff teams.