Quinnell House

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 kindness and compassion 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 and respected their privacy and dignity.

The atmosphere in the home was welcoming, friendly and calm. People felt they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity in their day-to-day care and support. One person said, “Lovely here, good people, don’t like the food much but everything else is great.” Visitors told us, “Very kind and my relative is happy, there has been a lot of staff changes, but I hope things are settling,” and “No problems with how staff are with my relative, always clean and well dressed, is happy, disappointing about changes in management, there have been no meetings.”

Health professionals told us, “Staff seem to be very good, interactions are warm and friendly,” and “I don’t visit all the time, but staff are always kind and polite. It’s a busy home.”

Our observations told us staff were respectful and kind when assisting people with lunch or moving around the home. The mealtimes were calm with dedicated staff supporting people in a supportive way, encouraging independence through prompting. Staff sat beside people when chatting so they had good eye contact and could be heard easily.

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 records reflected people’s communication needs so staff understood how to provide people with information and how people communicated their choices and preferences. These are currently being reviewed to ensure they reflect people current needs.

There were a variety of communal areas which people could choose from, but these were mostly unused with most people staying in the main lounge and dining room.

People were encouraged to have visitors and go out in the gardens as they wished. We observed staff accompanying some people outside for a walk. One person confirmed that they went out in the garden and told us of how they used to do work in the green house and potting up. This however had not happened yet this spring.

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 maintain relationships with people who were important to them. Visitors were welcomed and relatives confirmed they were able to visit their loved ones at any time. One family member told us she had a key for her relative’s room so they could have time on their own and she could replenish clothes and toiletries.
Staff told us they offered people choices of drinks and meals, asked where they would like to spend their time, and informed people when activities taking place. One staff member said, “We try really hard to promote independence here, I think we do, we always involve family members as well.”
People were encouraged and supported to do as much as they could for themselves, to maintain their independent living skills. People’s care plans reflected this approach, what they were willing and capable of doing for themselves safely, and what they needed staff support with.

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.

Relatives told us, “They seem to respond quickly when my relatives’ been poorly, and they are good about they keep us informed.”

There were people who had access to a call bell, but during our visits, these were not used. There were detailed risk assessments regarding the use of call bells. No concerns were mentioned by people during our visits, but it was noted that one person on our site visit had been calling out for up to 15 minutes without a response from staff until inspector found a staff member. This was being investigated.

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

Feedback from staff was mixed relating to the support they received from the management team and their approach to their welfare and wellbeing. Some staff told us that having four different managers and high staff turnover had been hard over the past year. They had felt unsupported and had not been having regular supervision or team meetings to be able to discuss their role or training requirements. The gaps in staff training had not been followed up or staff encouraged to undertake training to ensure they had the skill to perform their role in the service. Staff also said, “Since we have had the help and support from the manager of other home and the consultant, we feel supported and we have leadership again.” Feedback was shared with the provider regarding staff feeling undervalued and never being praised or thanked for the work they do.