Fort Horsted Care Home Ltd

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.

Many people and relatives described staff as kind, friendly and respectful. A person told us, “All staff are friendly.” Another person said, “The staff do a really good job.” Relatives told us staff treated their family members “like family.” Another relative said, “They are brilliant couldn’t wish for a better lot.” The service had received some compliments on their care. A compliment read, ‘All staff treated [relative] with the utmost care, with dignity and respect.’

We observed warm, positive interactions throughout the service, staff knocked on people’s doors and engaged them in friendly conversation during mealtimes and activities. We also observed staff supporting and engaging happily with people’s relatives. A staff member said, “We take care these residents like they are our own mothers and fathers. The communication is there. We give them support they really like us as well.”

A healthcare professional confirmed staff also treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment usually met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff generally knew people well, including their preferences, routines, and communication needs, and used this knowledge to personalise care. A relative told us, “It was [relative’s birthday]. We spoke to the team there and we decided to surprise [relative’s name]. [Staff] bought [relative] a sash banner and ballons and made a fuss. I was touched the [deputy manager] came in on [their] day off to see [relative].”

Relatives described how staff understood what their family members liked to eat, how they preferred to be supported and what helped them feel comfortable. We observed staff responding to people’s preferences during mealtimes and remembering individual likes and dislikes. A person said, “They have learnt I like to have a small meal…They always ask me. They know me.”

Some care records showed lovely examples of personalised support, including identity‑affirming care and clear and detailed guidance to supporting people who might be more likely to experience inequality to have equitable experiences. Families and other advocates or representatives were involved in care planning where people could not always express their views themselves following a recent drive from the registered manager to better support this practice. This helped people feel known, valued, and respected.

The service supported people’s protected characteristics including religion. People commented that religious groups and leaders visited the home. Staff were aware of people who might want to practice their faith. A staff member said, “Ones who have an interest we try to get up as soon as possible, we give them every support they need."

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

Care records generally contained guidance for staff which highlighted what people were able to do for themselves and where they required support. They also emphasised offering choice and ensuring dignity when supporting people.

Staff encouraged independence where possible, such as supporting people to feed themselves, make choices about food, and participate in activities at their own pace. A staff member said, “We try to give a lot of encouragement show them they are capable, we speak them through the process.” A person said, “I try to do things myself if I can, but sometimes I get frustrated, then [carer] comes and tries to cheer me up.”

Staff also gave examples of how they supported people to make choices. A staff member said, “If I offer personal care, I help with a few clothes to show people to help them know which ones they want to wear so it is not me choosing and I am giving them what they want.”

Relatives gave examples of staff encouraging people to do as much as they could for themselves, including eating and communicating choices. People confirmed they were given choice and their decisions were respected. A person told us, “I didn’t fancy lunch so had tomatoes on toast."

Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Although people told us staff usually came when they asked for help, we identified occasions where people waited a long time for support, including at night when shared equipment was unavailable. Feedback from people confirmed sometimes they had to wait for their needs to be met which caused them concern and discomfort and did not always support dignified care. The provider had been monitoring call bell response times, and the last 2 audits identified some long response times. The registered manager had arranged a meeting with staff and told us they would take action to address the long wait times. We will check this at our next inspection.

Relatives said staff kept them well informed when their family members were unwell or had an accident.

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

Staff spoke positively about the registered manager’s visible and supportive leadership, including open communication, regular supervision, and recognition of good practice. The provider had systems in place to acknowledge staff contributions. There were a long‑service awards and an employee recognition scheme. Staff said it felt nice to be recognised for their work.

Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and said the management team was approachable and responsive. Training records showed staff received a wide range of relevant training, staff told us they were able to request additional training, and we saw evidence of training and workshops being delivered to boost staff skills. Wellbeing initiatives such as mental health first aiders were in place. This supported a stable workforce and helped staff provide consistent care to people.