Archived: Hilbre 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.

This is the first assessment since this service was registered. This key question has been rated 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.

People told us staff treated them well. People’s comments included, “Staff are kind and caring, the staff are marvellous, all of them, no one is getting me out of here, it’s my home and I love it!” Another person confirmed, “I am well cared for, and staff check on me regularly” and “I am very happy and well-treated. All the staff are great, we have a laugh.”

People’s relatives also confirmed they thought their loved one was treated well. Comments from relatives included, “The staff love her, and she loves them - I take my hat off to the staff, I can’t fault the place,” “[Name] has settled in so well to the point she doesn’t even mention home” and “[Name] is so well taken care of, I am so happy with the home and there is nothing they [Staff] can do better.”

People’s privacy and dignity were respected. Staff were observed knocking on bedroom doors and closing doors after accompanying people into toilets and bathrooms. People’s right to privacy and confidentiality was also respected. People’s care records were kept securely.

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.

We observed people having conversations with staff which confirmed staff knew people well. For example, one staff member spoke with a person about where they used to live and work, and another staff member spoke with a person about their family. Staff addressed people by their preferred names.

The provider fostered a welcoming culture for people’s families, and they were encouraged to contribute to their care plans to help ensure person centred information was captured, to help people be cared for in a way which recognised their individuality. Relatives confirmed they had been involved with people’s care plans. One relative told us, “I was involved with Mum’s care plan in the beginning and was asked lots of questions."

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and well-being.We observed people exercising choice. People moved freely around communal areas with some using walking aids such as frames and walking sticks.

Staff were observed encouraging people to use their mobility aids, for example, a person attempted to get out of their chair without their walking frame and a staff member noticed this and encouraged the person to use their frame. This helped to encourage people to remain as independent as possible.

A relative confirmed how their loved one had regained their independence since being at the home, “[Name] has been here 12 months and has gained confidence and strength and can now walk! She has come on in leaps and bounds."

Although were assured the provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff didn't always respond to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

During our assessment, we observed people who were unsupervised for periods of time, in the main lounge and communal areas. We also observed 1 person in their bedroom who had left their lunch untouched, we had to alert staff to this person’s need.

However, we received positive feedback from people and their relatives. One person told us, “Staff do everything they need to for me and come quickly when I use my call bell.”

For people who preferred to spend time in their bedrooms or who were unable to use a call bell, regular welfare checks were in place, to help ensure people’s needs were met. A relative told us, “Mum spends a lot of time in her room, and that’s completely her choice, but the staff make a point of walking past and checking in."

Although we were assured the provider cared about and promoted the well-being of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care, we received some concerns from staff, that at times, they found they had too much to do, which had a negative their well-being. For example, some staff told us they had additional duties in addition to their care role, such as laundry duties and stacking/emptying the dishwasher.

The provider held ‘bonding nights’ for staff, where staff were provided with a meal and music to help them feel more appreciated. The manager explained about how important it was to ensure staff felt happy and valued as this meant staff were likely to stay, and this was good for the residents of the home.