Southdown 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 remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion and maintained their dignity. Interactions were respectful and caring, and staff showed warmth in the way they supported people.

People experienced caring and considerate interactions from staff. We observed warm, reassuring communication throughout the service, including staff checking whether people were comfortable and offering practical support sensitively. For example, a nurse noticed a person felt cold and offered them a blanket. Staff took time to explain what they were doing when supporting people, and interactions during the lunchtime service were polite and attentive.

Relatives consistently described staff as kind and compassionate. One relative said that staff “went out of their way to be kind to [their family member], talk to them and to talk to me too.” Another told us, “They would always stay calm and keep talking to [their family member] until they had calmed down.” Staff-led activities, such as a quiz, were facilitated in a way that aimed to include each person individually, and we observed the staff member leading the quiz approaching people gently to enable participation at their own pace.

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.

Staff respected people as individuals and took account of their personal histories, likes and preferences. Care was personalised, and people were supported in a way that recognised their identity and what mattered to them.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s backgrounds and what was important to them. One relative explained they chose the home because staff were able to speak the same language as their family member which helped them to feel understood and comforted.

Staff offered people day‑to‑day choices, including what to wear, where to sit and what they wished to eat. A staff member said, “When we are doing personal care we always ask them what they want to wear. I let them choose.” Inspectors observed personalised bedroom spaces with family photos, decorations and belongings that reflected people’s identities, helping create a sense of familiarity and ownership.

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

People were supported to have choice and control over their everyday lives. Staff encouraged independence where possible and respected people’s decisions, even when these differed from their own views.

People were offered choices throughout the day, and staff respected these. Inspectors observed staff offering alternatives at mealtimes and returning later when someone declined lunch initially. The chef adapted options to meet people’s preferences and needs, helping ensure people could enjoy food they preferred or could manage safely.

People were supported to maintain independence wherever possible. We saw staff encouraging people to mobilise safely using their mobility equipment. A person used a specially designed cup that supported independent drinking, and staff checked discreetly that it remained within reach.

Relatives described how staff acknowledged and supported people’s preferred routines. One relative said that staff recognised their [family member] became anxious when taken outside the home and adapted their approach by supporting them to remain in the lounge where they felt more comfortable.

The visiting policy was open and flexible, allowing relatives to spend meaningful time with loved ones.

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.

Staff responded to people’s immediate needs in a timely and considerate way. People received support when they required it, and staff recognised and acted on changes in people’s wellbeing.

We observed prompt responses when people required assistance. Staff immediately stopped what they were doing when a person asked to use the toilet, ensuring the person was not kept waiting. Another person who frequently called out was consistently attended to by the same staff member, who showed patience and reassurance even when the person’s requests changed quickly.

Relatives confirmed staff responded quickly when people were unwell or distressed. One said, “They were really caring throughout… the staff stayed with [their family member] when they needed to go to hospital.”

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff did not consistently feel supported in their roles. Workforce pressures affected their wellbeing and their ability to provide consistently high‑quality care.

Staff expressed mixed experiences of support from managers. Several staff described positive relationships within the wider care team. However, staff felt less supported by their managers and raised concerns about the impact of working conditions on their wellbeing.

A key issue was short‑notice rotas. Staff told us the weekly rota was usually only released on Sundays, giving little time to plan personal commitments. One staff member said they had been unable to visit family abroad for several years because annual leave could not exceed 2 weeks.

Workload challenges also impacted wellbeing. Care workers were responsible for additional tasks such as laundry and activities, reducing their time for direct care. Despite these pressures, staff continued to demonstrate commitment to people.