Applecroft Care 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 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 70 (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 with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People and relatives said that staff were kind and caring. One person told us, “I am spoilt rotten.” A relative said, “Staff distract him in a kind and compassionate way because they know him. The staff are always calm. I have only seen kindness.” Another relative told us, “The staff work well together. They are pretty high on personal skills. They are good and friendly. I know them by name. It’s a good working environment and they are good at their job. They chat with people.”

Relatives told us that staff’s kindness and compassion extended to them as well as their family member. A relative described how staff had given them emotional support when they were experiencing high levels of distress.

Relatives said staff treated people with dignity and respect. Comments included, “I’ve got to be honest, they have been superb with their care. They respect and they give time to her. She is happy with them and sees them as her friends” and “They respect his wish if he wants to stay in his room. They respect his choices. They shut his door for privacy.”

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.

People and their relatives had been asked about their preferences, choices, cultural and faith needs and these were documented in care records. We observed staff treating people individually according to their preferences and choices. Some people became agitated and staff spoke calmly to them, making eye contact and offering a distraction such as a cup of tea or a walk. Staff described how people had different triggers for their anxieties which required differing responses. For example, staff described how one person did not respond well to a noisy environment and enjoyed listening to calming music away from the communal area in the seated area in the corridor.

Relatives told us staff knew people well and so were able to support them in an individual way. A relative told us, “Yes, my family member can get upset so staff walk them around the corridor to help them to calm down.” Another relative said, “Staff are aware that she might say ’lemonade’ when she is offered a drink, but she may want something else.”

A health care professional told us, “As a home they are not focused on medication, but on how to best meet the needs of the clients’ as an individual.”

There were some inconsistencies in how the provider promoted people’s independence, to ensure people had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Care plans guided staff about what type of support people needed with aspects of their personal care and to mobilise, and the things people could do independently. Staff described how they prompted people with some tasks so they could do them independently and how they physically supported people with other aspects of their care.

We received some mixed feedback about how this guidance was followed in practice. Comments included, “They give her as much independence as possible. She can decide to eat in her room, dining room or in the lounge. Now she can dress herself very slowly” and “He is losing independence here. He is not encouraged to be independent. Staff do not prompt him.”

We observed staff asking people where they wanted to sit and what they wanted to drink. During the day staff kept a discrete eye on people who liked to walk around their home. People were assisted to use equipment to walk so they could do so independently. Night reports evidenced that people who chose to get up during the night were enabled to do so. A relative said, “He is a bit of a night owl. He is able to wander around and the staff are good with him.”

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 manner. When people were distressed staff acted appropriately as they understood people’s communication styles. Staff explained how they looked for changes in people’s facial expression or body language which might indicate they were in pain or unwell. They said they would record this in the person’s daily notes and inform the nurse.

Relatives said staff responded to people’s immediate needs. Comments included, “Yes, staff come quickly when he presses his button for his pain medication. They come often to ask him if he needs more pain medication” and “Some of the residents are quite aggressive. I can see that staff never lose their patience and they will repeat themselves if they need to, so they understand.”

The provider was working towards promoting the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The results of the staff survey for 2025 were that staff felt listened to, treated fairly and able to speak up. Staff said there was good communication amongst the staff team and they were supported by colleagues. Staff said they were kept informed of essential information about the service through group e-mails.

Staff development was encouraged. Several staff had trained and qualified as a Care home assistant practitioner (CHAPS). These are experienced staff who assist nurses by taking on a specific range of clinic tasks such as medication management and liaising with health care professionals.

Although staff said it was a positive place to work there were some mixed responses about if they felt valued as a staff member. Some staff felt valued and others did not feel that their contribution towards the service was appreciated and recognised. The interim manager had praised the whole staff team at a team meeting in December 2025. They had acted to support staff wellbeing through ensuring staff had regular supervisions. The employee of the month had been reintroduced whereby individual staff members were nominated for their outstanding contribution to the service.