Dean Park

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 85 (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 and relatives told us staff were kind and caring. People commented, “All the staff get on with me very well” and “I get on very well with [staff], they sit with me in the kitchen and have dinner with me.” One relative commented, “Here they see each other as a family. Staff have been awfully polite.”

We observed staff supporting people in a kind and caring way. For example, staff used a friendly, polite tone when speaking with people. We observed staff chatting with people about their likes and interests. For example, some people had an interest in the garden. During the inspection, people and the staff spoke proudly about what they were growing in the garden and how they enjoyed this.

People’s care plans and records were written in a kind and compassionate way. Staff upheld people’s dignity. For example, staff asked if they could access people’s bedrooms.Staff observations took place to ensure staff treated people with dignity and respect.

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.

The provider had recently introduced a process where people recorded short video clips explaining how they wished staff to communicate with them, what's important to them, the people important in their lives, their likes, dislikes and health needs. This empowering tool put people at the centre of their care.Staff knew people extremely well, including their preferred communication styles, emotional triggers, life histories and the subtle ways they expressed their needs. This deep understanding enabled staff to support people sensitively and proactively. Staff also used a keyworker system for staff to advocate for the person's needs, wishes and aspirations.

People had detailed information in their care plans about their likes and dislikes, and their social, cultural and religious preferences. Some people were supported to attend the Church regularly, which they told us they enjoyed and spoke positively about. People’s bedrooms were personalised to their preferences, and staff knew people’s likes and interests. For example, 1 person liked jewellery and accessories, and we saw the person was wearing jewellery during the inspection. One relative also commented, “[Person] loves earrings. She is always dolled up.” Another person enjoyed knitting, and staff supported the person to take part in this activity.

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

One person was supported to have a voluntary job, which had a positive impact on their confidence. They also regularly wrote in a monthly newsletter which was distributed to people, relatives and staff. We observed the person getting involved in part of this during our site visit.

All people were supported to get involved in the weekly menu and food preparation. One person commented, “Now they can’t get me out of the kitchen.” Another person had learnt to make their own sandwiches which they had not done previously.

Other people were encouraged to take part in audits around their home to ensure its safety. We observed 2 people taking part in some of these safety checks during our site visit. People we spoke with told us they enjoyed these checks and spoke positively about them.

One person, who lacked capacity to manage their finances, was empowered to make choices around their finances by providing them with a weekly budget so they could choose what they spent their money on. This helped the person feel more in control of their finances.

People’s care plans were written with them. People’s care plans contained information about what they could do for themselves and where people did not require support. This enabled people to be as independent as possible. People told us they could choose when they got up in the morning and when they went to bed. People also had a choice of what meal they had, as there were always at least 2 options available.

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 observed staff responding to people’s needs in a timely way during our inspection. People told us staff came quickly when they required support. We saw 1 person, who had a health need, was responded to in an innovative and empowering way which had a positive impact on their wellbeing. Staff knew people well. There were systems to monitor how responsive staff were to people’s needs, such as regular auditing, daily oversight, behavioural monitoring, and partnership working with other health professionals. Leaders also undertook quarterly face to face visits and the service and met with the manager monthly to discuss the operation of the service.We saw evidence of staff being responsive to people’s changing needs, such as making referrals to specialist services in a timely way.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. They supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care. However, some staff told us this was impacted by staffing levels.

Some staff spoke positively about how they were supported. There were processes in place to support wellbeing, such as employee of the month, regular supervisions and team meetings. Staff also had access to free counselling sessions and staff were invited to meals and activities outside of work.

Some staff told us staffing levels did not promote their wellbeing. Comments included, “There is nothing to promote staff wellbeing that I’ve seen or heard – it's a shame I do think they could do more as we are being pushed to the limits” and “I don’t feel supported enough, I feel pressured not to leave the floor, it’s stressful for me.” We raised the feedback from staff with the nominated individual for them to review.