Hickling 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 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. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed that the culture of the service placed people at the centre of care and the staff treated people with dignity and respect whilst promoting privacy and independence. We witnessed a staff member in a busy environment who spoke quietly with a person about changing their clothes helping to maintain their dignity and privacy.

Family members were highly positive about the caring nature of staff, describing them as kind and caring and one relative explained when asked about the best thing about the service “The staff, the people, the management, the staff always go the extra mile, nothing’s too much trouble.”

A person told us that the staff are “Always kind, caring and so cheerful. Yes, the staff know me and I know them. They become your second family” and another person shared “When it was my birthday, I requested a band to come and play. The home arranged it – what a lovely surprise.”

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

People’s individuality was respected; we observed staff giving choices for daily routines such as meals, activities and personal care. Relatives told us that the staff had taken time to get to know people and rooms were made familiar to people living in the service with their own cherished items.

The staff had a great knowledge about people’s preferences; however,

they still ensured they always offered choices.

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

The manager had commenced a wishes board for the aspirations of the people living at the service and people had responded well, choosing to eat fish and chips at the beach, afternoon tea, trips to the pub and seaside, to visit a model railway exhibition and gardening. One person likes to attend church on a Sunday whilst another person likes to hang her own washing on the washing line and fold her own clothes, the staff have made this possible.

Staff encouraged people to achieve tasks for themselves offering assistance where needed promoting confidence and autonomy.

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

Staff were knowledgeable about each person and could describe their needs. Changes in people’s needs were recognised and discussed during shift handovers. A person who needed more support and prompts at mealtimes was immediately given assistance and a referral to the specialist healthcare team completed which helped the person to eat and drink safely.

They ensured people received care in a timely manner through effective systems implemented.

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.

We found there was a lack of evidence to show the wellbeing of staff was consistently monitored. A return-to-work interview was not conducted when staff returned following an absence.

However, staff and management agreed that the wellbeing of staff was constantly checked by the management team, the registered manager had implemented actions to address this.

There was a positive team culture in the home and staff spoke about the workload as being manageable that “Some days are full on; it is mostly okay and never boring.” Most of the time staff felt valued and all agreed that they could approach the management team at any time for work and personal issues.

A staff member shared that “I always want to come to work” and another said that “I love this little home.”