Osmund Court (Care Outlook)

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 for this newly registered service. 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 75 (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, compassion and respect, and staff supported people in ways that upheld their dignity at all times. People consistently described staff as warm, patient and gentle, one person said, “Staff gave me back my life,” And “We do things together as a family here”. They told us staff took time, did not rush, spoke reassuringly and ensured people felt safe and dignified during personal care. Staff were trained to promote privacy, modesty and confidentiality, and people told us carers supported them to dress modestly and respected personal boundaries throughout care tasks. One person told us, “Staff respect my privacy when I wash.” Relatives reported a strong culture of kindness, one relative told us, “Staff go above and beyond, this included preparing personalised gifts in their own time.” A health professional described the team as, “Caring and responsive, a very special team”.

The provider always treated people as individuals and supported them in ways that reflected their personal histories, preferences and identities. People’s feedback, care records and observations showed staff understood what mattered to each person, including interests such as photography, sport, religious needs, music preferences and family relationships. Staff used this knowledge to build trust, support emotional wellbeing and encourage participation in meaningful activities. Relatives and professionals consistently said staff knew people “really well” and adapted approaches based on mood, energy levels and communication preferences. Although emotional and psychological support strategies were not always fully recorded in care plans, staff demonstrated strong insight into how best to support each person, particularly those with fluctuating mood or complex dementia.

The provider generally promoted people’s independence and encouraged choice and control in daily life. People described feeling supported to do as much as they could for themselves, with staff enabling rather than taking over tasks. Staff worked collaboratively with therapists, specialist nurses and GPs to help people regain or maintain independence. Staff encouraged people to communicate preferences about routines, personal care and activities, and people told us they felt listened to. Staff respected decisions even when they differed from their own views and sought professional advice when people’s needs changed. However, inconsistencies in how mental capacity was recorded for specific tasks meant the documentation did not always reflect the person‑centred practice taking place day to day. It also failed to show how staff supported people when they made unwise decisions, or how these decisions were understood and managed in line with the MCA.

The provider always responded promptly and appropriately when people’s needs changed. One person told us, “If I need it staff respond as quick as they can”. Another told us they were confident staff would notice changes, including early signs of skin deterioration or changes in mobility. Records and professional feedback showed staff escalated concerns appropriately, including contacting GPs or calling 999 when people became acutely unwell. People were supported by consistent staff who knew their needs well, including for complex care packages. Staff worked closely with external professionals and partners, which helped ensure timely reviews, joint assessments and continuity of care. People said they could get help when they needed it and appreciated the availability of activities, communal events and outings that supported social connection. Some care plans did not fully document guidance about when to escalate risks such as bowel changes or self‑neglect, but staff practice remained responsive and attentive.

The provider always supported staff wellbeing and created an environment where staff felt valued and able to deliver compassionate care. One staff member described the culture as, “Like a family, where no one’s left out.” Staff consistently told us managers were approachable, visible and highly supportive. This positive culture contributed directly to the caring experience of people living at Osmund Court. Staff reported strong teamwork and said they could speak up, share ideas and raise concerns confidently. They had access to a wide training programme including condition‑specific and regulatory topics such as dementia, Parkinson’s, safeguarding, medicines, equality and diversity, and moving and handling. Staff felt equipped to provide safe, person‑centred care and sought additional guidance from specialists when needed. This supportive environment enabled staff to remain motivated, compassionate and consistent in their approach to people’s care.