Carisbrooke 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.

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.

Staff had received training regarding promoting dignity and person-centred support.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people living at the service.

Professionals who have visited the service told us that staff were welcoming and approachable. One person told us, “Carisbrooke House are always welcoming when I walk into the building, I am given warm welcome and taken to the office once I have correctly logged in.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care plans included some helpful information, such as people’s food preferences and guidance on ensuring their environment remained safe. However, there was limited personalisation in the living spaces we viewed. Although one person had personal belongings in their room, these had not been used to personalise or decorate the space and remained stored away. This did not support people to have a homely and individualised environment reflective of their identity and preferences.

People told us they could receive visitors when they wished and they were welcomed into the home. Staff also supported them to access the community.

Overall, while staff knew people well, the provider had not ensured that assessment and care planning processes fully captured people’s current needs, involved them in decision‑making, or promoted personalised environments.

The provider promoted people’s independence and supported them to understand their rights, giving them choice and control over their care, treatment, and overall wellbeing. People were encouraged to make decisions about how they wanted to live their daily lives, and staff worked in partnership with them to achieve this.

People told us they were supported to access their local community in ways that were meaningful to them. This included trips to supermarkets, restaurants and parks, helping people stay connected to the places and activities they enjoyed. People were supported to choose how they spent their days. For example, one person was a keen football fan, and staff told us plans were being made to support them to attend a football match. This reflected staff’s commitment to enabling people to enjoy the things that mattered most to them.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of person‑centered care and the importance of promoting independence. One staff member told us, “My role is to offer person‑centered care. I listen to them and work with them to achieve independence by allowing them to make their decision.” Another staff member said, “I support people’s individual needs by following their person‑centered care plan such as their preferences, values, dignity and independence, and getting to know them as individuals. I promote independence by encouraging them to do what they can for themselves.”

The provider did not always listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not consistently respond to people’s immediate needs or act in ways that reduced discomfort, concern or distress in the moment. This meant people were not always supported in a timely or reassuring way.

During our visit, we did observe examples where staff responded quickly when people needed support. This showed that staff were capable of providing prompt assistance. However, this was not consistent across all interactions.

People’s care documents included information about triggers that may lead to behaviours of concern. Despite this, key information was not always incorporated into care plans. This meant staff did not always have clear, accessible guidance on how to respond to people’s emotional or behavioural needs in the moment.

During the assessment, we observed a situation where a person firmly held onto an inspector and staff were unsure how to respond. This demonstrated a lack of clarity and confidence in how to manage immediate needs or unexpected behaviours safely and appropriately.

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

Overall, the service demonstrated a positive approach to workforce well‑being and enablement. Most staff told us they felt supported in their roles and were able to take regular breaks during their shifts. They reported that managers were approachable and that they generally felt valued and listened to.

However, one member of staff told us they did not receive regular, planned breaks. We raised this with the provider, who explained that a staff survey had recently been completed to gather views on this issue.

Although the provider had taken steps to understand staff experience, the results of the survey had not been shared with staff at the service, and staff had not been provided with an opportunity to opt in or out of planned breaks.

The provider acknowledged this and assured us they would review both the decision and the policy. They reiterated that staff well‑being is important to them and committed to improving communication and ensuring staff are given clearer information and choice regarding break arrangements.

Despite the areas requiring attention, the workforce reported feeling supported overall, and the provider demonstrated openness and willingness to act on concerns raised.