Hafod Residential 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 service 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 changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

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 treated people as individuals and made sure that care, support, and treatment met people’s specific needs and preferences. Staff considered people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, cultural and religious backgrounds, and protected characteristics.

People had personalised care plans which detailed their needs and their preferences to support staff in meeting their needs. When planning and delivering care, one staff member said, “I always check with them [people] what they want and how they like things done before I start any care.”

People and relatives confirmed that staff knew people well and tailored care to reflect their personal histories, routines, and preferences. One relative told us, “They [staff] really understand what my relative likes and don’t just follow a routine, they make it personal.”

Some people experienced care that promoted independence and personal development. For example, one person who had previously been unable to write or draw now participated in creative activities, and another had made noticeable progress in communication since arriving at the service. Staff used recognised assessment tools and personalised care plans, increasingly supported by the new digital system, to ensure that care reflected individual needs.

While staff largely met people’s communication needs, some care plans lacked information on detailed strategies and tools to support people with more complex communication requirements. The service had started improving this area to ensure all people could engage fully in their care and maximise outcomes.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure that care, support, and treatment met people’s specific needs and preferences. Staff considered people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, cultural and religious backgrounds, and protected characteristics

People had personalised care plans which detailed their needs and their preferences to support staff in meeting their needs. When planning and delivering care, one staff member said, “I always check with them [people] what they want and how they like things done before I start any care.”

People and relatives confirmed that staff knew people well and tailored care to reflect their personal histories, routines, and preferences. One relative told us, “They [staff] really understand what my relative likes and don’t just follow a routine, they make it personal.”

Some people experienced care that promoted independence and personal development. For example, one person who had previously been unable to write or draw now participated in creative activities, and another had made noticeable progress in communication since arriving at the service. Staff used recognised assessment tools and personalised care plans, increasingly supported by the new digital system, to ensure that care reflected individual needs.

While staff largely met people’s communication needs, some care plans lacked information on detailed strategies and tools to support people with more complex communication requirements. The service had started improving this area to ensure all people could engage fully in their care and maximise outcomes.

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

People were supported to make decisions about daily routines, meals, and personal care, and staff mostly encouraged involvement in planning their care. People had opportunities to maintain relationships with family, friends, and their wider community, with staff facilitating visits and social contact.

However, opportunities for meaningful activities were limited and not consistently provided. People and relatives reported that outings were infrequent, and some people could not regularly participate in the activities they enjoyed. One person said, “We don’t get out much, and sometimes there isn’t much to do in the home,” while a relative commented, “More activities and trips would really help my family member stay engaged and active.” Choice of activities was also constrained; while people could sometimes select from available options, these were not always varied or offered routinely.

Staff supported independence and involvement in daily life where possible, but the lack of regular, engaging activities reduced peoples’ opportunities to exercise full choice and control over their daily experiences. Despite this, the service promoted people’s rights and encouraged decision-making in areas such as personal care, meals, and social interactions.

Whilst the service listened to and understood 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 and their relatives told us that staff were not always able to respond to their immediate needs in a timely manner. One person told us “They do their best, but sometimes it takes a while because there aren’t enough of them.” Relatives told us there were occasions when people had to wait for support, particularly at busy times or when urgent assistance was required. One family member described how their loved one had to wait to use the toilet because staff were occupied with others. During our assessment, we observed some people were waiting for support, and some expressed frustrations about delays in call bell responses. The staffing limitations affected staff’s ability to respond to people’s needs promptly at times causing people discomfort and delayed support.

However, staff made every effort to attend to people as soon as they could even when the resources were limited. Following our feedback, the service reviewed staffing levels to improve staff’s ability to respond to people’s need promptly.

The provider did not always prioritise and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff wellbeing was not consistently supported. Staff frequently missed breaks or took them while remaining with people, meaning they did not always have adequate time to rest or manage their workload effectively. The provider did not ensure sufficient resources or staffing to promote staff wellbeing, relying on supernumerary staff and temporary measures which did not address day-to-day shortfalls.

These pressures affected both staff and people. Limited staff directly reduced the frequency and quality of people’s outings, social interactions, and personalised care. Although staff worked well together and remained committed to providing kind, person-centred support, inconsistent attention to workforce wellbeing meant they were not always enabled to do their job well or maintain their own wellbeing