Magic 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. When we last assessed this key question, we rated it good. At this assessment we only looked at parts of the key question and 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.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

People lived independently as much as possible and received the required support from staff to do so. Staff supported people to maintain contact with their loved ones, through phone calls or video calls, and in-person visits. Comments from people included, “I like living at this project, I have my own space”, “I have more freedom here than the last place”, “I manage my own medication but do need prompting” and “I have regular visits from my daughters.” Staff supported people to take part in activities of their choice. Some people chose to participate in group activities with other people living at the same scheme, which staff facilitated.

Staff offered people choices and involved them in day-to-day activities and decisions about their care. A staff member told us, “I support people and encourage their independence by supporting them to budget and save.” Other comments included, “[Person] picks their food from the fridge and washes their own plate” and “We go shopping together, people can pick what they want.”

While some people were able to express their independence and the control they had over their care, we found 2 examples where people were potentially subjected to unjustified restrictions. One person’s care plan stated, “[Person] comes out of the room and want to sit on the sofa in the lounge he is not aware of time. Staff to let him know it is midnight and to go to bed.” An incident form for another person recorded the person wanted to sleep at midnight which staff found to be “inappropriate”. Managers told us these issues were more related to how information was recorded.

One person had a manager’s office located in a separate room within their flat. This meant staff accessed their flat whenever they needed to go to the office which impacted the person’s independence and privacy. This type of arrangement goes against the model of care and setting that maximises people's choice, control and independence. We raised this with the registered manager who told us they were working to have the office moved to a more suitable location.

Systems, including one-to-one sessions, allowed staff to work with people and understand their preferences when planning their care and activities. This gave people control over their lives. Measures in place enabled people to go out independently where possible. Staff kept records of activities people took part in, which managers monitored.

In many cases, especially where people had a consistent staff team, people were supported by staff who knew how to react when they became upset or agitated. This showed staff learned people’s needs and dispositions and developed ways to support them using positive approaches. A relative told us, “Staff notice when [person] is becoming upset and use distraction techniques to manage these triggers. [Person’s] behaviour has got so much better since being there.” Another relative said, “[Person] becomes quiet if he is upset and staff notice this and respond appropriately.”

Staff spoke with us about the signs people displayed when they became upset or agitated, and how they interacted with them to de-escalate the situation and supported them to feel better. Two staff we spoke with told us they did not use physical restraint when a person became distressed but used techniques such as giving space, verbal reassurance and distraction. A staff member told us they did not offer PRN medicine (in this particular case the staff referred to a psychotropic medicine used to help the person feel calmer) frequently but only as “the last option”. A senior manager spoke to us about introducing core staff teams to improve consistency of staff support for people.

We observed staff working and engaging with people in their preferred ways while also respecting their choices. Staff knew when to offer close attention to people and when to give them space. While we were interacting with a person on inspection, a staff member noticed when the person was becoming restless and wanted to go out; they intervened swiftly and smoothly by diverting the person’s attention and proceeded to getting ready to go out. The person remained calm and cheerful.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.