The Headington Care 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 inspection for this newly registered 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 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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. Staff at the service appeared kind, and interactions with people were compassionate, although limited.

Staff spoke kindly about people they supported. We observed staff to be kind and compassionate. We also observed polite and considerate interactions between staff and professionals. People and their relatives said staff were kind and respectful, and treated them with dignity.

The provider treated people as individuals. They made sure 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, although documentation did not always support this.

People who had lived in the service on a long-term basis were supported to personalise their rooms. This meant their environment was homely.

Staff were understanding and considerate of people’s personal, cultural, and religious needs. One member of staff told us they would provide a religious diet for someone if they needed it.

The provider promoted people’s independence. People were offered choice over their wellbeing, however, were not always given choice or control over their care and treatment.

We observed activities taking place, and people choosing whether to participate or not. People were able to contribute to the activities provided. The activities coordinator supported people to go to local shops and purchase items they wanted.

A person was supported to attend community support groups, and access vital equipment to ensure they had choice over their own wellbeing, in a safe, dignified manner. The chef told us that people could request meals outside of the menu provided. We observed staff encouraging people to mobilise independently and ensure that people were able to help themselves to snacks and drinks when they needed.

However, we observed a conversation in which a staff member explained that a person could only be offered one of the menu options because others in the unit required softer diets, meaning there was not enough of the alternative meal available. The staff member commented, “Just tell [person] that is the only option today.”

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.

We observed people did not always have access to their call bells. A person’s relative told us, “There is [a call bell] but a few times when I have gone in to see [person], it is not even within [their] reach.” We attended a morning handover between team leaders in the service, where it was reported a person had complained about unanswered call bells. The staff member stated that the call‑bell panel had been switched off over the weekend for a second time, meaning upstairs calls were not heard despite staff being allocated to that area. This meant people were put at risk by waiting for assistance for long periods of time, when they could have experienced an emergency.

We observed staff inviting people to play a small game with 3 people in a communal area. One person asked staff to move away from them, as the movement was upsetting them. Staff did not respond and continued to play the game, and the person became distressed. Another person repeatedly attempted to mobilise during this time and was heard asking for help, however, staff did not respond to them.

We received mixed feedback from relatives about the provider’s response to people’s distress. Comments included, “With the help of [healthcare services] and a change of medication [person] has calmed down now,” and “[Person] suffers from dementia and is prone to [experiencing distressed behaviour] and they seem to have calmed [person] down already. Other comments included, “I have often seen a [staff member] just sit there and watch rather than go and help someone when they are upset and calling for help.”

However, people who experienced distressed behaviour had clear guidance in their care plans for staff to follow to support them during this time. Staff had received relevant training and were able to give us examples of how they would help someone in times of distress. External professionals told us staff had effectively supported a person who experienced distress when mobilising and had encouraged them to transfer using assistive equipment. This helped the person retain their independence.

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

Staff had access to a workplace app, which provided wellbeing resources, discounts, an employee assistance programme (EAP), short‑term loans deducted from wages, and savings pots. The provider had policies in place for bullying and harassment, as well as menopause and perimenopause support.

The provider recognised staff contributions through an employee of the month award, chosen jointly by management and people using the service. The provider also promoted inclusion and team building through events such as a summer barbecue attended by staff, people, and their relatives. The provider also supported staff celebrations, including baby showers and retirement parties.