Solent Grange Nursing Home

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 since registration under the new provider. 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 70 (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 consistently demonstrated kind, respectful and compassionate interactions with people using the service. We observed staff speaking with people in a warm and friendly manner and supporting them in a way that promoted dignity, including during personal care. The atmosphere within the service was calm and welcoming. This ensured people experienced day-to-day care that supported their emotional wellbeing and dignity.

People provided consistently positive feedback about staff attitudes and behaviour. One person told us, “The staff treat me with dignity and respect,” and another told us, “Nothing is ever too much trouble for them.” This demonstrated that people felt valued and well treated by staff, supporting positive relationships and confidence in their care.

Relatives also spoke positively about the kindness and compassion shown by staff. One relative described how their family member was always clean and well cared for, and highlighted the importance of staff maintaining personal appearance, stating that feet and nails were “always beautifully cut and manicured.” Another relative told us, “Staff are very kind and compassionate.” This demonstrated that relatives had confidence in the quality of day-to-day care and that people’s dignity and wellbeing were being promoted.

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 records showed some recognition of people’s cultural and personal needs, although this was not always consistently detailed. For example, 1 person’s faith was recorded within their care plan. However, there was limited information on how staff should support them to practise their religion. Despite this, the person told us, “Yes, staff respect and support my religious and cultural needs,” demonstrating that individual needs were generally respected in practice, supporting cultural inclusion and respect.

Staff demonstrated personalised care in day-to-day practice. People told us they were supported in ways that reflected their preferences, including being addressed by preferred names. One person confirmed staff used their chosen name, which supported their identity and dignity. This demonstrated that staff understood and applied individual preferences, supporting person-centred care.

People’s living environments reflected their individuality. Bedrooms were decorated with personal belongings, photographs and items of importance to people. This created a homely and familiar environment and supported people to feel comfortable and settled in their surroundings, promoting emotional wellbeing and identity.

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 maintain relationships and community connections. Relatives told us that friends and family were encouraged to visit and take part in celebrations. People were also supported to access the community and participate in activities they enjoyed. This demonstrated that people’s social independence and relationships were generally promoted.

People told us they were offered choice in their daily lives, including decisions about personal care, meals, bedtime routines and the gender of staff providing support. We observed people being offered choices throughout the inspection. This demonstrated that people were supported to exercise day-to-day control over their lives.

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.

During the inspection, we observed a person become distressed after locking themselves in an en-suite bathroom. The person activated their sensor mat and called out for help for up to 5 minutes before staff responded, following prompting from the inspection team. The person was later reassured by staff. However, within 30 minutes, the person again activated their sensor mat, and staff did not respond promptly until prompted. This demonstrated delays in responding to immediate need, increasing the risk of distress and reduced safety for the person.

People and relatives also raised concerns about call bell response times. One person told us, “Sometimes the call bells can take a long time to be answered. Mostly in the mornings and at night,” and a relative told us, “The call bells can take a long time to be answered but there are always staff popping in to check on [Person].” This demonstrated that people did not always receive timely responses when requesting assistance, affecting their sense of safety and reassurance.

Despite this, staff demonstrated awareness of people’s communication needs and responded appropriately in some situations. We observed staff recognising non-verbal cues and acting to prevent escalation of distress, including arranging contact with family members when people became anxious and supporting individuals to move to calm environments for reassurance. This demonstrated that staff had some understanding of people’s needs, although this was not consistently reflected in timely responses to immediate distress.

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

The provider had systems in place to support staff wellbeing, including supervision and annual appraisals. Staff also took part in wellbeing initiatives such as “Staff Wellbeing Week,” which included activities such as mindfulness sessions, appreciation events, small gifts, and wellbeing-focused engagement. This demonstrated that the provider had mechanisms in place to support staff morale and wellbeing.

Staff and the registered manager described a positive workplace culture, with recognition schemes such as annual staff awards. Staff told us they felt supported, valued and listened to, even when working under pressure due to staffing levels. One staff member told us they were supported during a personal bereavement with additional time off, demonstrating responsive managerial support that contributed to staff wellbeing.

People and relatives also commented positively on staff morale and culture. One person told us, “The staff all seem to really like working here,” and another told us, “It does feel like a family here.” A relative commented, “Management are obviously fantastic at looking after their staff.” This demonstrated that positive staff wellbeing was visible to people and contributed to a supportive environment, supporting continuity and consistency of care.