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

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 as requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation.

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.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

A relative commented, “The staff used to stay longer. Now I come and I don’t recognise any of them.” Some people and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring. A relative said, “The staff all like [family member]; they’re very good.” The only concerns were with consistency of staff and the use of agency staff. One person said, “They don’t have the same staff around. I don’t know anybody. They have loads of different staff and agency staff come and go. The regular staff are always training new staff.” Another person told us, “When staff come in, I have to remind them to shut the door; they wouldn’t otherwise.”

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.

People’s preferences were recorded in their care plans. For example, 1 person’s care plan stated they should only be supported by female carers as they would become anxious if supported by male staff. Staff were advised to check the daily allocation sheet to ensure female staff assisted this person. Another person had conditions placed on their Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation which advised liaising with local groups for support and activities, as there was no contact with the person’s family. At the time of the assessment, no-one had any particular cultural or spiritual needs, although the manager said these would be supported when required.

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

We asked people and their relatives about their wishes, goals and aspirations for the future; we received mixed responses. One person said, “I want to stay here.” Another person told us, “I’m not happy here. I want to live with my family or in a smaller place. I would just like to leave, and staff know that.”

Activities were planned on a daily basis and many were repetitive over each month. For example, people with a learning disability had individual activities planners and these showed how often they went out and activities when they stayed home. Bingo, arts and crafts and board games were prevalent. Activities planners were not personalised to show how people’s interests and choices had been reflected. In one plan it stated the person would like to be involved in activities to help maintain or improve cognitive ability, but it did not state how this could be done. We saw an activities planner in one person’s room, but this was not up to date as it stated this person attended a day centre on 3 days a week, but they only attended 1 day a week. An activity of ‘sensory’ was also recorded, but it was not clear what this involved. On their care plan, under a section relating to preferences, likes, dislikes and hobbies, it stated, ‘Not available’.

Whilst some activities were popular amongst older people, some of whom were living with dementia, they were not suitable for people with a learning disability. For example, ‘reminiscence therapy’ is predominantly and older person’s activity.

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.

We saw 2 people were sitting in a small lounge and 1 was calling for help. A staff member, with another, ascertained the person needed support to go to the toilet. They transferred the person to their wheelchair and ensured they had their personal effects with them. The staff were patient, considerate and kind.

Responses to call bells were fairly prompt and bells were not ringing for too long. Staff did not appear to be rushed. One person used a picture board to communicate what they wanted. A referral was to be made to a speech and language therapist to see if a different sort of board might improve communication between the person and staff.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of staff.

Staff were encouraged to share any concerns with senior staff and the management team. One staff member said, “Management has improved. We have a clinical lead and it’s given us more support.” Another staff member told us, “If we have a problem, we discuss with team leaders. If it’s not sorted, we go to the managers. We have staff from different religions and countries and we discuss everything. There’s no pressure on us; managers are approachable.”

Supervision meetings and staff meetings enabled staff to discuss their performance and to share ideas with the management team.