Georgina 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained at requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

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.

The provider did not always treat people with dignity and respect.

People living in the service had not always been treated with dignity. One person lived in damp and mouldy conditions due to inadequate ventilation in their ensuite facility. Other people were using broken furniture to store their clothing. The garden had not been maintained to a satisfactory standard.

However, people’s care plans promoted the importance of providing respectful and dignified support in all aspects of people’s care.

Staff were able to describe care that was kind and compassionate. When asked how they show kindness and respect, a staff member said, “I show kindness the same way as I would with my family and those that are close to me”, and “I think this is a very loving home, and all staff look out for the people living here.”

We observed that the door to a person’s room was closed when they were being supported with their personal care needs. We saw staff sharing affectionate gestures with people, such as holding a person’s hand when providing reassurance.

Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. An independent advocate who visits the home regularly told us, “The care staff are great. They can anticipate my clients’ needs and arrange activities according to their preferences. When observing staff with my client, they are compassionate and treat them respectfully.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or ensure their care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, and aspirations.

People were not always treated as individuals and could not participate in activities of their choice. For example, meeting notes over a period of 3 months described the same wish, to learn to swim for one person and for another person to have a swing erected in the garden. Still, despite this regularly being recorded, no action had been taken by the registered manager. This impacted people’s ability to realise their personal goals and ambitions. A staff member said, “There are several activities where all four residents will attend together.” The provider has since informed us that new indoor activities have been introduced in the home, included resist art and creating rice sensory bins.

However, the staff was able to tell us about people’s needs and abilities, explain their role in supporting people, and provide a detailed description of all the activities in which people took part. They also knew people’s personal, cultural, social, and religious needs. Staff described several events they celebrate at home, including Eid and Diwali, and said that celebrating them allows everyone to get to know other people’s cultures and values.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, choice and control.

The service failed to promote people’s independence, and people were not consistently supported in accessing activities of their choice in the community. Activity planner records were not pictorial; people had to choose activities from tiny photographs. It was unclear from each person’s activity planner whether the activities on the planner were constantly occurring. At the start of this assessment, the registered manager confirmed that not everyone at the service received 1-1 support to attend meaningful hobbies and interests. This had a negative impact on the frequency of activities for some people due to there being an insufficient number of staff available to support activities. The registered manager planned to organise a local community football team to provide new social opportunities for people and support their health and wellbeing. However, this hadn’t come to fruition during our assessment.

However, staff told us that people were encouraged to help staff with cleaning and laundry as much as possible, depending on their abilities.

During our on-site visit, we observed people being supported in making choices about their day-to-day care, such as where they wanted to go in the home and what they would like to eat and drink. One person’s independence was encouraged with the use of a plate guard, which enabled the person to eat their meal independently.

People’s care plans described what people could do for themselves, including personal hygiene, and what support staff should provide. The plans also included detailed information about people’s histories, likes and dislikes.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views, and wishes. Staff responded to these needs and acted to minimise discomfort, concern, or distress.

Staff knew and understood people and how to respond to them if they were anxious or distressed. The people’s support plan contained details for staff, including the signs to look for and a step-by-step approach to what staff should do next, for example, during periods of heightened anxiety.

A staff member told us they felt confident supporting people living at the service, advising that they could tell from a person’s body language that something was not quite right. Staff could also describe the signs to look out for when people who could not communicate verbally, were in pain or wished to visit the bathroom. Care plans were detailed, and the methods of achieving positive outcomes were described.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

The provider had a range of benefits, including access to an Employee Assistance Provider and a confidential whistle-blowing helpline.

Staff said the service's leaders supported their wellbeing.

We received mixed feedback from staff about their workload. Comments included, “[The deputy manager] will help with paperwork. We work as a team,” and “Our workload is manageable, we can make suggestions, and management always listens.” (See the safe and effective staffing section for more details).