Nightingale Court

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (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.
We spoke to relatives as part of our assessment and one relative told us, “The care and support is really good staff are brilliant with them, and they are exactly what they need at the moment. The communication with management is really good and, we are kept well informed”.
Another relative told us, “We are very happy with the care and support for (relative name), the new staff seem a lot better and very helpful. Management is great and morale seems a lot better in the home”.
As part of our assessment, we observed interactions between staff and people living in the home. These were consistently positive and demonstrated that staff genuinely cared for the individuals they supported.
During one observation, a resident appeared to be enjoying a performance by an external singer but was hesitant to join the wider group. Staff engaged in the activity themselves and, with gentle encouragement, supported the resident to participate. The person then engaged with the group and appeared to thoroughly enjoy the experience.

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.
The management team demonstrated a good understanding of the people living in the home. As part of the transition to a new care‑planning system, care plans were detailed and clearly reflected individuals’ personal preferences and what mattered most to them.
Staff told us the new care planning system was more user‑friendly and enabled them to access care plans, updates and reviews more easily. Some staff told us they would also speak with people’s families and friends to find out more about them if needed.
People were supported to maintain relationships with those important to them. In addition to visitors being welcomed into people’s rooms, the provider had created a dedicated space where people could enjoy visits in a comfortable environment outside of their own living area.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.
The care plans we reviewed clearly outlined what people could do independently and where they required staff support. For example, some individuals were required minimal support with persona care. This approach helped ensure people were encouraged to maintain their independence as much as possible.
During lunchtime, we observed staff actively promoting people’s independence. Staff checked that people were enjoying their meals, offered gentle encouragement throughout the mealtime, and asked whether they wished to have more, supporting choice and control wherever possible.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.
The service demonstrated that it listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff were visible throughout the assessment and were attentive and responsive, acting promptly when people required support.
People’s care plans set out their preferences, choices and well‑being needs in clear detail. These were reviewed regularly, ensuring staff consistently held an up‑to‑date understanding of each person’s support needs.
During the assessment, one person told us they were dissatisfied with aspects of their room, particularly the lighting. This feedback was shared with the manager and passed to the facilities team, who took prompt action to address the person’s concerns and made the necessary adjustments to their lighting.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.
Staff we spoke with during the assessment were positive about the new management team. A new manager had also recently been appointed, and staff shared similarly positive feedback about their leadership. One staff member told us, “[Name] has been fantastic. I initially struggled with the changes, but they supported me and gave me time.”
Another staff member said, “Previously, I reached a point where I wanted to leave. But the new management team have been very supportive; the environment is much calmer and less stressful now.”
Throughout our assessment, we observed the management team being proactive and visible, supporting both staff and residents with day‑to‑day tasks.
The new provider was seeking additional ways to support the team by introducing staff initiatives, such as employee discounts, access to health‑related services, and enhanced wellbeing benefits.