The Firs Care Centre

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 of this key question since the service was registered to the current provider. 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 65 (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 told us staff were kind and caring. Throughout our visit we saw staff spoke with people respectfully when supporting them with care. One person told us, “The staff are brilliant.”

People told us their visitors were always made welcome. One visiting professional said they were always made welcome and felt all staff were approachable.

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.

Care plans contained information about each person and their likes and dislikes. This helped staff to provide care and support which met people’s individual needs and wishes.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. However, some improvements were needed to make sure people had meaningful social interaction.

The provider employed 3 activity workers who supported people with daily activities. However, we saw people not directly involved in an organised activity received limited social stimulation. There was limited interaction between staff and people when staff were not supporting them with a task. For example, we saw some people spent the day in the lounge, including mealtimes, without any meaningful social interaction. We discussed this with the registered manager who gave assurances this issue would be addressed.

People told us they had choices about their day to day lives. People said they could get up and go to bed at times of their choosing. One member of staff commented, “Everything is people’s choice.” One visiting professional said, “I feel people are always offered choices, and their independence is promoted where possible to ensure the best quality of life.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand 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.

During the inspection we observed that 3 people were sat in chairs which were too low for them. We pointed this out to the manager who said they would make sure the chair was raised. This was not done by the end of the inspection visits.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff spoken with were happy in their role with most saying they thought improvements had been made in the past few months. One member of staff said, “It’s a good place to work. The nurses are very supportive.” Another member of staff commented, “It’s 100% better now. The managers are very supportive.”

Results of the most recent staff survey showed a high level of satisfaction from staff working at the home.