Hope Valley 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 newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment, staff training, person centred care and governance at this inspection.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We observed kind and caring interactions between staff and people, with staff taking time to meet people’s emotional needs. Staff were seen to be playing card games and board games with people, and we overheard a conversation about local pubs which a person enjoyed visiting.

Feedback from relatives included, “The staff seem kind, and I see them chatting with the residents including my relative.” And “They generally talk to [person] with kindness.” Another relative shared, “They treat [person] like one of their own and it feels like being part of a family with a nice atmosphere and all the other residents chat with us as well.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Some relatives told us that staff did not always show personalised knowledge about people’s individuality in the delivery of day-to-day care, such as preference of gender of staff supporting them. One relative told us, “At times [staff] also just seem to make things up for example we asked if they’d had breakfast and they said yes but we later found out that [person] hadn't.” The provider explained the resident of the day initiative would focus on one person’s care and support each month as people and relatives would be included in reviews to ensure preferences were documented and respected.

Other feedback, indicated efforts to understand and respect people’s personal history and preferences. One relative told us, “They did do a ‘Know me’ form about [person]. I know [staff] know things because they tell me things about my relative and [person] still talks about their life.” During our inspection we observed some staff proactively engage with people about how they were feeling, and topics of interest to them.

We received some feedback which demonstrated in practice, people were not always supported to maintain their independence where possible. For example, one person told us, “They go in and pick something for [person] to wear which [person] doesn't like but they don't think to ask what [person] would like to wear.”

However, staff demonstrated an understanding of how to promote independence. For example, one staff member told us, “I like to promote as much independence as possible to the residents I provide care for, whether this is spending that extra bit of time with them so they can give themselves a wash independently or helping them to mobilise with assistance instead of using a wheelchair.”

The provider was also supporting one person to transition towards more independent living.

People were supported to maintain relationships with those important to them. There were no restrictions on visiting, and during our inspection, staff actively supported people and their loved ones to enjoy meaningful visits.

We observed positive interactions between the activities co-ordinator and people using the service. The co-ordinator adapted their approach to ensure individuals felt included, understood, and engaged in ways that reflected their personal interests and hobbies. This included music-based activities and quizzes. Relatives shared, “There is an activities person who seems quite involved and quite good and has got to know each of the residents and what they like. [They] seem quite proactive and patient.” And “I've seen them doing the flag wave exercise and singing and music and they throw hoops. They also try to do some personal activities one to one with people so they can understand more about [Person].”

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 could not be fully assured that the service consistently met people’s immediate needs. Although staff were present and responsive during our inspection, systems to monitor and evaluate responsiveness were lacking. For example, call bell response times were not audited, and records such as one-to-one support documents and behaviour charts were not routinely reviewed by management.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. We received consistent feedback from staff that they felt supported in their roles and described the manager as approachable and fair. Staff shared that they felt able to raise concerns and seek guidance when needed, which contributed to a positive working environment. The provider also shared plans to introduce measures to recognise and celebrate good practice, such as an “Employee of the Month” initiative. While these plans were not yet in place at the time of our inspection, they reflected a commitment to valuing staff contributions and promoting morale.