Old Hastings 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 meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as
partners in their care.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

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. People and their loved ones all told us that staff were kind and compassionate. Comments included, “The staff are lovely and will always help, including the domestic staff - never say ‘it’s not my job,’” “Absolutely they are kind” and “Definitely always kind and compassionate.” Similarly, people’s dignity was respected. A person said, “They are always polite and ask me first, always knock on my door before coming in.” Another added, “Yes absolutely, they always knock when coming in and out with drinks etc and are very respectful.” We saw staff sitting with people and chatting with them. The atmosphere was friendly and welcoming and people looked happy when interacting with staff. We spoke with professionals that visit the service and they confirmed they had always seen staff being kind and supportive to people. When supporting people with personal care a temporary sign was hung on the outside of their bedroom door saying, ‘care in progress’ to ensure no one entered the room.

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 plans contained some details of people’s likes, dislikes and preferred daily routines. Cultural and spiritual needs were highlighted and staff told us that several religious denominations were supported. Staff did know people well and we observed several interactions and conversations between people and staff where staff were focussing on the person, talking about their interests and their friends and families. Activities were geared towards encouraging people to be involved in things they enjoyed, for example, games, singing and one to one conversations. People told us that staff were always welcoming and supportive and respected their wishes. One person said, “This is a good home, always has been.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People told us that staff encouraged them to be independent. A person told us, “I can move now between here (seat) and the door, try and do it a few times each day. They do encourage me it’s very important, I’m not so mobile right now but it will come back.’ Other people also told us they were encouraged to do things for themselves within the confines of safety. For example, washing, dressing and taking part in some activities. Staff confirmed the importance of maintaining independence with one telling us, “We always encourage people to do as much as they can for themselves, difficult sometimes, because I want to help them but its better if they try. People get assessed as to how much they can do on their own, we just assist when necessary.”

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. Staff were generally attentive to people however we saw some people in their rooms who were not in a position to reach or use their call bells. Checks were made on people in their rooms, but this group of people were unable to call for help or assistance if needed. Similarly, some people when alone in their rooms could not reach drinks or other items around their rooms that they may want. Care plans for these people did not reflect their current needs as more support was required. This was brought to the attention of the registered manager who took some immediate steps to rectify the position. When in communal areas staff were attentive to people, stopping to speak with them and being there for them when they either asked for or clearly were in need of, assistance.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff told us that over the past six months they had not been listened to by managers all of the time and did not feel as supported as they needed. They told us the position had begun to improve under the new manager. An experienced member of staff told us, “It’s a lovely home and I’m very happy working here however recently I’ve not been listened to and no action taken over concerns raised. Things are getting better.” Another member of staff said, “I have a challenging resident who I could do with more support with. I have mentioned this to my supervisor. If there is a difficult message to pass to them, they get aggressive. Hopefully I’ll get more support now.” The registered manager told us they were introducing an electronic rota with planned supervision meetings for staff every quarter. Attached to this system is a ‘staff development tracker,’ which adds in additional supervisions if needed either for development or welfare needs.