Silversprings

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 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 staff generally respected people’s dignity and privacy. However, there were some areas for improvement. Observations identified that some staff were task-focused and did not always engage meaningfully with people, particularly during mealtimes, where long periods of silence were noted. There were also some instances of staff entering rooms without knocking. The registered manager discussed this with staff following our feedback to address and improve practice Despite these issues, most interactions were warm and respectful, with staff knowing residents by name and communicating in a kind manner. Relatives spoke highly of staff attentiveness and emotional support, with a relative stating, “Everything is great, I have nothing bad to say.” Another person using the service commented, “The staff are good. I have built some good relationships. Some staff do not talk much and are quite task-orientated; they do the task well though.”

We observed staff treated people with warmth and compassion. Staff knew people well and were able to quickly pick up on any changes in their presentation which might indicate they were unwell or anxious. Care was individualised as staff adapted their approach to people accordingly. Discreet support was observed with personal care, such as toileting and clothing adjustments, and staff were seen to be caring and supportive when needed.

The provider treated people as individuals and recognised their unique needs and preferences, although there were some inconsistencies in practice. Activities offered did not always align with residents’ interests. One person said, “Staff are kind to me, but I am bored.”

On the day of the first site visit people were playing with balloons and some people felt this activity was childish and not fun. People told us they felt there was a lack of activities in the evening and weekend. One person told us there was an activity for bird watching, they had completed this many times and they would like a different activity.

People also told us they would like more opportunities for fresh air particularly when their rooms were on the ground floor. Some people also liked to go outside, but this was not always accommodated. People did acknowledge that the weather was cold and once Spring came more activities and opportunities would be available outdoors.

Bedrooms were clean and some were highly personalised, reflecting people’s personalities and histories. Relatives and people using the service reported that staff were attentive to individual needs, and one relative said, “They keep me informed, but I have asked that they do not call me as that makes me anxious and I think something is seriously wrong. They will leave me notes or write things down when I come to visit.”

People were also supported to attend outings that were important to them. A health care professional explained that staff had gone above and beyond to accommodate a specific outing for one person.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing. People were encouraged to make day-to-day decisions. Care plans detailed how people liked to dress, and how and when they preferred to have their meals. Where people were unable to make these decisions, staff had got to know people well and were able to present informed choices to support them in making those decisions. People confirmed that if they wanted care to be delivered by a female, this request was accommodated.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs and tried to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. It was evident staff knew people well and knew how they liked to be supported in their day-to-day care. For example, if people wished to get up later, this was accommodated and staff provided care when it suited people. One staff member told us care was delivered in line with the ‘flower of need’, which represents ensuring people are provided with comfort, inclusion and attachment. Another staff member told us, “Knowing your resident is key; this is how we provide good support.”

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, supporting and enabling them to consistently deliver person-centred care. Staff felt supported in their roles and received regular supervision, which included discussions about their general wellbeing as well as work. Staff were offered, and encouraged to request, training opportunities to assist with their day-to-day roles, as well as to progress their careers or simply expand their knowledge. Those who wished to progress into more senior or different roles said they felt supported in achieving their ambitions. Apprenticeship opportunities within the service were available and actively promoted. Staff undertaking apprenticeships received regular supervision and constructive feedback, helping them successfully balance their practical duties with their academic studies.

There was a recognition scheme for staff achievements, with colleagues able to nominate each other each month, alongside a long service award, which helped ensure staff felt valued in their roles.