Provence 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. This is the first assessment for this service. 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.

Staff always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

The service was consistently caring in the way staff interacted with people. Staff were gentle, reassuring and took time to speak with people, and people repeatedly described staff as kind. One person said, “They (staff) are very kind, nothing is too much trouble.” Another told us, “The carers are very nice and pleasant; I get on very well with them.” Relatives praised the warmth of staff, saying staff “chivvy [Name] along” and spend time going through photo books with people.

Staff supported people respectfully during meals, knelt to speak at eye level, encouraged people to choose music and showed interest in their lives. One person hugged a staff member after being helped to select music. Staff were observed speaking quietly, reassuring people, and offering alternatives when meals were declined. A relative said, “The staff are very caring. They know [Name] and make sure they know people’s personalities.”

People’s privacy and dignity were upheld. Staff knocked before entering rooms, protected people’s modesty while supporting personal care, and held sensitive conversations discreetly. Relatives said staff were “very good” at protecting 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 were treated as individuals, and staff made efforts to get to know their histories, routines and preferences. Relatives described staff as understanding what mattered to people, with one saying, “They (staff) know [Name] very well and know what they like; they treat them as an individual.” Staff supported personalised routines, such as ensuring one person had their morning shower at the time they preferred and supporting another to continue attending various specialist community activities.

Activities were often tailored to personal interests, including one‑to‑one outings, hand massage, poetry groups, sound baths, and shopping trips for people who enjoyed this. Staff also used personalised objects, such as photo books, and adapted people’s bedding and room décor to help them settle.

People shared positive examples of their preferences being respected, such as choosing meals, opting to read the newspaper every day, or going for walks around the building. One person said, “I can do what I like, when I like.”

The provider had not always ensured people’s independence was promoted.

People did not always experience consistent choice and control over their day‑to‑day lives. Some people told us they were supported to make decisions about daily routines, and inspectors observed staff giving people choices around snacks and drinks. However, access around the home was sometimes restricted even for people with mental capacity. People had to ask staff to let them out, and one person was prevented from coming to reception because a staff member felt it was “too early”.

How staff supported people with their independence was inconsistent. Staff often decided portion sizes, added gravy or cream without asking, and did not consistently offer second helpings. One person’s food was removed without being asked whether they had finished. Some people were served lunch shortly after eating a late breakfast, reducing their ability to make meaningful choices.

The provider listened to people’s needs, views and wishes but was not always proactive in responding effectively. Staff were not always able to respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Communication between shifts did not always ensure timely responses. Some people were left without meaningful engagement for extended periods. Inspectors observed people sitting with no interaction or remaining in dining rooms after breakfast for long periods without any stimulation. While staff were caring and responsive when present, a lack of direct management for staff affected the consistency of immediate support.

Staff knew many people well and were able to respond with kindness when present. Inspectors observed staff offering comfort, noticing people’s distress, and adapting their approach. One relative described staff responding quickly when a person became unwell. Staff also gently encouraged people to engage in activities or accept alternative meals where appropriate.

However, there were concerns about how reliably staff responded to immediate needs. Some people described long waits after using their call bells, and inspectors observed call bells that were not acknowledged for lengthy periods.

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

Most staff felt valued and supported. They spoke positively about teamwork and described colleagues as supportive. Staff said they enjoyed spending time with people and felt proud of their roles. The provider offered wellbeing support such as flexible shifts, transport assistance after car breakdowns, and emotional support following bereavement. There were staff newsletters, activities, and recognition schemes such as Employee of the Month.

Staff spoke with pride about their work and expressed their commitment to people living at the service.