Harrier Lodge

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 did not always demonstrate kindness, empathy and compassion or consistently respect people’s privacy and dignity.

We found staff did not always show understanding or compassion towards people experiencing anxiety or distress. For example, staff described a person as “demanding, persistent and controlling,” without demonstrating an understanding of the underlying causes of their behaviour or adapting their approach to provide person-centred, compassionate support.

However, most people and their relatives gave positive feedback about staff attitudes and care. Relatives described staff as “patient,” “wonderful,” and respectful, with 1 stating, “They treat my relative with care and dignity… they are very good in this respect.” Another told us, “All the staff are polite and friendly… always cheerful and happy to be there.”

Relatives also gave examples of staff maintaining people’s dignity during personal care. Comments included: “[Relative] is a very private person, but staff are very good with their personal care,” and “They close the door and always talk to them about what they are doing.” During the inspection, we observed staff were attentive and caring, and people appeared comfortable in their presence.

The provider treated people as individuals and ensured people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took into account people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care plans contained information about what was important to people, including their backgrounds, preferences, abilities, culture and religion and other personal information.

A person told us, “I get on with the girls. They know how I like to be cared for and they do things the way I want it. They know my favourite TV programmes and remind me and I watch them before being supported to bed.” A relative told us, “When my relative first moved to the home, they asked for their likes and dislikes and what sports or other things they liked.”

People were supported to maintain their cultural and spiritual needs. For example, individuals were supported to receive visits from a priest and to take part in religious services, reflecting their beliefs and preferences.

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 make decisions about their daily lives and were encouraged to do as much as possible for themselves. For example, staff used show plates during mealtimes to support people to make informed choices, and people were routinely offered options and asked about their preferences.

People told us they felt listened to and involved in decisions about their care. A person said, “Yes, they always listen to me.” Another person explained they were able to do most things independently, including aspects of their personal care, and only requested minimal support when needed.

Care plans identified what people were able to do for themselves, which supported staff to promote independence in a consistent and person-centred way. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of encouraging independence and told us they actively supported people to maintain their skills and confidence.

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.

Although records showed most call bells were answered within five minutes, we observed occasions where this standard was not met. During the inspection, there were 2 instances where call bells exceeded the expected response time, indicated by a change in the system tone. Despite this, staff not engaged in urgent tasks did not demonstrate sufficient urgency in responding. While staff were present, they did not appear attentive to the situation, which raised concerns about staff attitude.

Feedback from people and their relatives also indicated that response times were not always consistent. A person told us, “Sometimes I have to go to them and they tell me to wait even when you see that they are just chatting away. Sometimes they tell me they will come back but they don’t always come back.”

We also found that staff did not always demonstrate an understanding of how to support people experiencing anxiety. Staff did not consistently respond to people in a way that reduced distress or provided reassurance. Staff did not adapt their approach to meet individuals’ emotional needs who may present with heightened anxiety, which could impact how individuals respond to their environment or interactions.

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

Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and that their wellbeing was valued. Personal circumstances were considered where possible when planning shifts, with rotas adjusted to meet staff needs. A staff member described the ongoing support they received from the registered manager, explaining that this helped them manage both their work responsibilities and personal circumstances.

Break times were scheduled, and during the inspection, we observed staff taking their allocated breaks. Most staff said they were not overworked and understood how to raise concerns or grievances if needed.

The provider had systems in place to support staff well-being and engagement, including initiatives such as staff appreciation events, regular HR workshops and access to an Employee Assistance Programme.