Harboro

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 warm, patient interactions where staff gave people time, listened and explained what they were doing. Privacy was maintained during personal care and daily routines, and staff knocked before entering rooms. One person told us, “They [staff] are gentle and always knock before they come in.”

Relatives consistently described staff as caring and attentive. One family member said, “The staff are kind and look after [person] well.” Staff knew people well and used calm, reassuring approaches to reduce anxiety and support choice. Care plans guided staff to explain tasks, allow breaks and use techniques such as desensitisation for personal care, helping people feel comfortable and in control.

Recruitment and supervision processes focused on values such as empathy and respect, and staff told us they had time during shifts to build relationships. These practices helped ensure care was delivered in a way that promoted dignity, independence and trust.
 

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Staff knew people well and used non‑verbal cues and visual tools, but plans did not always record cultural, spiritual or religious needs, and easy‑read summaries were not yet available. The registered manager told us work was underway to introduce this functionality through a new system.

Feedback from relatives was mixed. One relative felt daily routines sometimes reflected staff preferences rather than individuals’, commenting, “I do feel the TV in the lounge is on too much.” However, another relative told us staff knew people well and tailored support to their interests.

Care plans included detailed guidance on non-verbal communication, helping staff recognise when someone was comfortable, in pain or unsettled. For example, one plan explained how to interpret facial expressions and body language when a person often said ’No’ and others described the use of picture-based communication and familiar staff to reduce anxiety.
 

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

Staff used adapted communication to help people understand options and encouraged them to build confidence and skills in everyday tasks. We saw examples of people being involved in decisions about their routines, activities and personal care.

Relatives told us people were supported to manage money, choose outings and take part in activities that promoted independence. One family member said, “[Person] has a bank card which [they] can use to buy things.” People also accessed community activities such as cycling with adapted bikes and social events.

The environment supported independence, with wide corridors, uncluttered spaces and accessible gardens that encouraged movement and choice. Staff described planning activities around people’s interests and using a minibus to increase community access. These arrangements helped people maintain independence and control over their daily lives.
 

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.

Relatives said staff acted quickly to keep people safe, including during the night and in health emergencies. One family member told us, “There is always a waking night staff… in case [person] has a seizure.” Care plans contained clear guidance for managing seizures, mealtime safety and other clinical risks, and these were supported by emergency protocols and handover logs.

Staff described following positive behaviour support (PBS) guidance, responding immediately to seizures and making rapid adjustments after medicine changes. These practices helped ensure people’s needs were met without unnecessary delay and in ways that promoted dignity and wellbeing.
 

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt supported and valued, and they had access to regular supervision and training that helped them deliver safe, compassionate care. Opportunities to reflect on practice after incidents were provided, which supported learning and resilience. These arrangements contributed to a stable and skilled team that understood people’s needs well.

Staff told us they knew how to raise concerns and felt confident to speak up if something was wrong. Leaders highlighted support mechanisms and staff confirmed they could access guidance when needed. This culture of openness and support helped ensure staff wellbeing and promoted safe care.