Hartford 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

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 65 (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 and respected their privacy and dignity. People and relatives, we spoke with told us staff were kind and caring. For example, a person told us, “The staff are pleasant, helpful and friendly”, and a relative said, “They work very hard and are so caring”. We observed kind interactions between people and staff.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals and make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. We observed lunch time interactions where staff showed they knew people’s preferences, for example when people followed a vegetarian diet. We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about whether care and support met their needs and preferences. For example, a person told us, “I think staff understand me and my needs”. However, another person’s relative told us they felt there was sometimes a lack of consistency in staff understanding their relative’s individual needs and preferences.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, and people did not always have full choice and control. There was a range of activities taking place at the home. People and relatives commented there was always something going on, and we observed multiple different activities taking place during our inspection visits. Staff supported a person who enjoyed photography to set up their computer in their bedroom, which meant they were able to edit their photographs and communicate with loved ones. However, people and relatives told us there was a lack of encouragement to get people involved in activities they would enjoy, or to socialise and come out of their bedrooms. This was also reflected in our observations. People were not always supported to go out and take part in activities they would choose due to limited availability. Many commented they felt this was due to not having enough staff.

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. For example, an entry in a person’s care notes stated they were banging on their bed rail and said they were “fed up of being stuck in bed all day and being alone”. The duration of the interaction was recorded as 10 minutes, and there was no information about how the person was supported. Their care plan noted staff should support and encourage them to participate in activities and socialise, but records showed this was not always done. However, we also saw staff respond promptly and with kindness on multiple occasions when a person called out from their bedroom.

The provider showed care about their staff. Staff had access to an employee assist programme and the home celebrated success via staff awards both in house and organisation wide.