Homebeech

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

Requires improvement: This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always ensure that people were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. People were not always referred or talked to appropriately.

Our observations showed that this appeared to be a lack of understanding with how to choose different ways of communication with people with diverse needs. For example, a person with a learning disability was spoken to using patronisingly language “good girl”, however the same staff spoke to an elderly person with the use of adult-to-adult language.

People and their relatives told us, “There are excellent staff who are very kind and nice” and “There has been an improvement in their health since they have had been living at Homebeech.” Staff could describe people they supported and tell us about people’s special interests and experiences prior to living at the service. They told us, “I believe in treating others as I would want to be treated by showing love and care.” A visiting healthcare professional told us, “I have observed staff interacting with residents and have found this to be kind when speaking to residents and visitors.

Staff at Homebeech did not always treat people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. One person’s care plan told us that they liked lots of activities like wrestling and going out with family, but it didn’t mention how this person accessed these things as part of an active independent life. We didn’t see any evidence that these activities took place.

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

Records didn’t always contain enough information about how staff should promote and support people’s independence. This included their preferred way of communicating as well as how to support people with their physical and health needs. The service was not able to demonstrate how they were meeting some of the underpinning principles of Right support, right care, right culture. We observed that support was task focused, and staff did things for people rather than encouraging them to do things for themselves with staff support. For example, we observed one person in their wheelchair for the duration of our visit. Their care plan said they liked to be transferred to a dining chair at mealtimes but this did not happen. Another person’s care plan stated that they would like to use a picture board to communicate their choices. This was not observed being used. The care plans for some people were very health focussed and lacked detail around how people should be supported to maximise their independence, choice and control.

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. People were not always attentive to people’s needs and responded to their requests for support in a timely manner. We observed a person waiting for over 1.5 hours to go to the shops and one of the inspection team reminded staff twice the person was still waiting. This person was assessed to receive 1-1 care and care plan stated they should be supported to go out.

We observed a member of staff comforting a person during a commemorative TV programme remembering VE Day. This helped manage their sadness and anxiety. A relative told us how staff helped their family member improve their health condition overall. We observed staff generally responded quickly to people in communal areas and provided reassurance appropriately.

The provider cared about and promoted the well-being of their staff. Staff told us they enjoyed their jobs and felt supported both professionally and personally by the management team on site. Staff told us, ‘Managers are supportive, their door is always open’ and "I think the management are very fair and I would speak to them about anything."