Cross Heath Grove

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 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.

Relatives consistently described staff as caring, friendly and welcoming.

Staff described protecting people’s privacy during personal care by closing doors and blinds, explaining what they were doing and seeking consent.

During our visits, people appeared relaxed around staff. We observed staff adapting their communication, responding warmly to people’s gestures and vocalisations, and sharing positive interactions. For example, a person offered a staff member a fist bump, which the staff member promptly returned, making the person smile. Staff also used gestures and visual prompts to help another person understand when they would return home.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or consistently tailor care to their personal needs, strengths and communication preferences. Staff knew people well and relatives said staff adapted their support. However, some care plans did not give staff accurate or personalised guidance. One person’s communication plan referred to Makaton and communication cards being used but we did not observe staff using these communication methods. The registered manager confirmed staff were not trained in Makaton. The same person’s records contained blank sections and information that was not relevant to the person’s specific requirements. This increased the risk that staff would provide generic or inconsistent support rather than care based on the person’s individual identity and needs.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Relatives gave positive examples of people choosing how long they stayed, where they went and which activities they joined. Staff said they encouraged people to dress themselves, brush their teeth, prepare food and eat independently, using prompting or adapted equipment where needed. During our visit, people moved around the communal areas when they wished, and staff offered choices about food and activities.

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.

The provider did not always respond promptly and effectively to people’s immediate needs. We reviewed evidence that showed examples of people complaining of health concerns and staff did not always escalating concerns in a timely way.

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

Most staff said they felt supported by managers and described supervision as helpful. Staff said managers sought their views, listened to suggestions and provided opportunities to raise concerns through supervision and staff meetings. Staff also described positive working relationships and confidence in reporting safeguarding concerns.