Florence 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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

This service scored 35 (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 mostly treated people with kindness and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

During our visit we witnessed some kind and compassionate interactions where staff had taken the time to support people. However, we also witnessed some interactions which were blunt and less caring. The lack of specific training in mental health to support people meant staff did not always have the skills needed to provide the right support and approach on all occasions.

Relatives and people overwhelmingly said staff were kind and caring and they knew people well.

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s care plans were not written with them and lacked details of their life history, skills, strengths, and wishes. There was no goal setting or independence planning. Therefore, the activities and access to the community was not tailored to meet people’s needs and promote what they would like to achieve.

Staff told us of an example where a person had not received support for their protected characteristic which did not give them confidence or help them in feeling ashamed and hiding it.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People who needed support to access the community and take part in activities were not always able to do this when they wanted due to staffing levels. We saw evidence that showed the people who used the service wanted more activities and relatives echoed their feedback. People also told us this.

Staff were aware of encouraging people to make choices; however, there was a lack of awareness of developing independence planning to help equip people with daily life skills.

The provider did not 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, concern or distress.

There was an over-reliance on medication prescribed on an ‘as required’ basis to support people’s mental health, as opposed to using other techniques. Some people were having this type of medication every day when that was not as it was intended. There seemed limited consultation with health care professionals around this.

There was a lack of positive behaviour support plans to support people and use of such tools as those to understand and analyse people’s behaviour at times of distress to ensure the person was receiving the right approach and support.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff were not given the training they required to enable them to support people to meet their needs, especially in relation to their mental health and learning disabilities. There had been different managers in the last year which had caused low morale and lack of support. Staff also told us of the importance of ensuring agency staff were able to take breaks at specific times to pray as part of their beliefs.

A staff survey had been completed in May which reflected the low morale and poor culture which had developed in the team. This had been reported back to staff at a meeting in a negative way, as opposed looking at ways to rebuild the team.

Since the last manager had left the staff had felt more appreciated and listened to with the temporary management arrangements including support from the deputy manager.