Hunsbury 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.

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 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.

People we spoke with were complimentary about the staff and told us their privacy and dignity were always maintained. A person told us, “Staff are good.” Another person told us, “Staff care – they are always here to help.”

Relatives feedback reflected that of their loved ones. A relative told us, “In general staff are caring, and treat my relative with dignity and respect.” Other relatives told us, “ As far as I know staff treat [relative] with dignity and respect, staff know my [relative] very well and I feel always treat [them] with the upmost respect and dignity in all matters.” A final relative told us, “I feel my relative is treated with dignity and respect.”

The atmosphere in the home was positive, relaxed and homely. The interactions we observed during the assessment confirmed people living at the service were treated with respect and dignity. This demonstrated a culture of kindness and respect throughout the service.

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.

Staff we spoke with were able to tell us about people who lived at the home, their likes and dislikes and any interests they had. Staff told us about people’s lives, what people enjoyed doing and people’s routines or habits. This demonstrated staff knew the people they supported well.

People and their relatives told us they were treated as individuals. A person told us, “I get all the help I need – they (staff) know all the things I need.” A relative told us staff had supported their loved one to attend a very special family event and that staff had been, “Helping [relative] to understand,” and were, “Very supportive throughout the whole process.”

Although some records in relation to this required improvement, we found people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs were assessed by the service For example, we found information in relation to people’s religion was recorded in care plans.

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

Staff were trained to support people in ways that maximised their independence. This included enabling people to prepare meals, and maintain their homes where possible. For example, we saw people preparing their own meal and tidying the kitchen.

Staff worked with people to build confidence and develop life skills. This included supporting people to access the community, attend appointments, and pursue hobbies and interests. A staff member told us, “We home in on their interests and help build confidence to do the things they want to do.” For example, staff told us a person who likes rugby goes to watch matches as often as possible.

People told us they took part in the social activities that were important to them. For example, bowling, baking, shopping, coffee, meals out, reading, crafts and going to the gym. A relative told us their loved one, “participates in a local ‘rock club’ where [they] meet up with other people from different care homes in an environment that is safe for [them].” People also told us about trips to the sea side, swimming and attending tribute band concerts.

The provider did not always provide staff with guidance that enabled them to respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff knew people well which meant they recognised potential early warning signs of distress, how to distract a person, and how to keep them safe. Staff could talk in detail about people’s care and support needs. A staff member told us they, “Support in a discreet way so they (people) are making a decision”.

Records of incidents and behaviours were completed each time there was an incident. The provider told us they were introducing a new electronic system that would support the evaluation of themes and trends and assess if any further action as required.

The provider had behaviour care plans. We found these did not always provide clear guidance on how to support people. We were not assured whether one person had an up-to-date care plan as there was a text watermark across the care plan saying, “Care plan closed.”

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

Staff felt their well-being was important to the provider and described the environment they worked as, “Family.” A staff member told, “It isn’t just about work – it is about me as a person outside of work.”

Staff attended regular supervisions and appraisals with their line manager. A staff member told us, “Yes – I have regular supervision with [manager] and appraisals.” The provider shared a report for supervisions and appraisals that showed us these were consistently completed.

The provider offered a range of employment benefits for staff and an employee assistance programme (EAP) to provide staff with confidential employee wellbeing support.

The provider carried out regular employee engagements surveys with actions taken in response shared with staff.