Hunters Creek Care Home

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 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff mostly treated people with kindness and respect. Staff were caring and people were supported in a way that promoted dignity, although there were some areas for improvement.

Confidentiality was not always well managed. A professional told us, “The environment is not confidential and not really appropriate for the type of discussions. This has resulted in having to ask to move somewhere more confidential, however, the new environment has still been in a communal area. I don't feel that the staff at Hunters Creek Care Home always consider confidentiality or respect privacy appropriately.”

There were also occasions where dignity was not fully maintained. We observed a staff member supporting a person to clean their face in a way that did not promote their dignity and they did not seek consent before the providing care. This resulted in the person becoming upset. In addition, items such as plastic beakers and water cups were used for people. The registered manager explained this was to support people living with dementia; however, it meant there was a blanket approach which did not always reflect people’s needs and preferences or uphold their dignity. The registered manager agreed to review this.

Staff did not always use language in records that valued and respected people when describing their needs. The registered manager had already identified this and had arranged further training for staff.

Despite these findings, there was a warm and friendly atmosphere within the service. Staff knew people well and there were also a lot of positive interactions, particularly on the ground floor where staff appeared more confident.

People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. One relative said, "The [staff] are delightful, kind and sweet". Feedback highlighted that staff were approachable and supportive. We observed natural conversations, laughter and engagement between staff and people. Concerns raised by people were acted on, such as when personal care issues were identified and addressed promptly.

The provider treated people as individuals and mostly supported care that reflected people’s needs and preferences.

There were areas where this was not yet fully developed. The provider had not consistently shown how people’s preferences were evidenced in all aspects of daily life. For example, there was a dedicated pub style area was available for people to use but limited understanding from some staff around supporting people with choices such as alcohol use within the home environment. Discussions with the registered manager showed this was an area for further consideration, including the use of mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions to support people to access what they wanted safely.

The provider had identified ways to improve how people’s individuality was recognised. Plans were in place to introduce memory boxes outside people’s rooms. These were intended to reflect people’s life history, interests and preferences to help staff understand people better.

The provider involved relatives in developing life history information which was then incorporated into their care plans. A recent coffee morning had taken place where relatives were invited to contribute to care planning. This helped staff to understand people’s backgrounds, experiences and what was important to them.

Staff knew people well and supported care that reflected their needs and routines. Care plans included personalised information about people’s health, preferences and daily support. The lifestyle staff had ensured people’s spirituality was respected and encouraged visiting faith leader to hold services or to spend time with people on their own.

The provider promoted people’s independence, choice and control over their care and daily lives.

We spoke with the registered manager and senior managers about the ‘Shut that door campaign’. The campaign is an approach used in care settings to support people to understand their right to privacy and to choose whether to keep their bedroom door open or closed, while making sure their safety and wellbeing can still be checked and dignity upheld. This included exploring how technology or different approaches could support people to have privacy while remaining safe, particularly where other people may become confused or enter other people’s bedrooms.

There were strong examples of promoting independence. One person had been supported to volunteer with jobs around the home, such as gardening and maintenance tasks. They were using these experiences to work towards paid employment. Another person was being supported, with their relatives and care team, to plan a move to a more independent living environment, with clear goals in place.

There were meaningful opportunities for people to take control of how they spent their time. Lifestyle activities were designed to be meaningful and based around people’s interests, including clubs such as quizzes, sports groups, and reading groups. People were involved in leading these, with 1 person helping to run the bar and another taking photographs at events. Activities were adapted based on feedback, such as changes to furniture to make spaces more accessible and comfortable.

People were supported to take part in activities in the wider community, including trips out to the lakes to go fishing, and fundraising events with relatives and revisiting old hobbies such as archery. Information was shared in formats people could understand, which supported people to make informed choices about their day to day lives.

Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in a consistent or effective way. Staff responses to people’s distress varied. We observed some positive interactions where staff successfully offered reassurance and support. However, this was not consistent across the staff team. Not all staff recognised signs of distress or took appropriate action to reduce anxiety or upset.

Despite these concerns, staff acted appropriately in emergency situations. There were clear processes in place and staff knew how to respond to urgent health needs. This included contacting emergency services when required to make sure people received timely medical support.

Feedback from relatives was mixed. One relative raised concerns about poor response times. They said, "I rang Hunters Creek Care Home to try and get a [staff] to go to my [family member] as soon as possible and the [staff] admitted to me that my [family member] had been pressing the alarm button. The [staff] then said, “I guess now I’m going to have to go.” Another relative gave positive feedback and said, "If there are any issues, we press the buzzer and someone comes very quickly." This showed people’s experiences were not always consistent.

The provider had taken steps to address the concerns identified. Training had been planned and staff were being supported to improve how they responded to people’s immediate needs.

The provider supported staff wellbeing and enabled them to deliver person centred care. There were some challenges in supporting staff due to the values from some people living at the service. Staff experienced discriminatory comments from a person, which would likely have had an impact on their wellbeing. This was being carefully managed to ensure staff felt safe and supported while continuing to provide good quality care.

The registered manager provided support to staff. They discussed how to respond to incidents and made sure staff had guidance on how to manage these situations. Staff told us they felt well supported and able to raise concerns and seek support when needed.

There were systems in place to support staff wellbeing. Staff received supervision and could speak with managers about their experiences. The registered manager promoted an open culture where staff could discuss concerns.

Despite the challenges, staff continued to provide caring support to people. There was a positive atmosphere in the service and staff worked together as a team. Staff described supporting each other and maintaining a respectful approach to care.

Team well-being was encouraged by providing team lunches, wellness days, mental health and well-being workshops and team building activities. This benefited the whole team to feel supported and promote a positive culture.