Archived: 1 & 2 Flax Cottages

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 requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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 had not always taken all reasonable and practicable steps to uphold people’s dignity. For instance, having to share bathing facilities with their neighbours. The shared garden spaces, whilst spacious, had been somewhat neglected, with a summerhouse misused for storage of confidential information, another inaccessible and an overflowing ashtray (no one living at the service smoked). More needed to be done to ensure the outdoor spaces had regard to individual preferences and dignity.

Staff were kind, patient and respectful with people. They cared deeply about people and worked hard to ensure their immediate needs were met, and that they were emotionally supported.

The service was relatively small, so staff had built close relationships with people, and the rapport between then was evident during our inspection visits.

One person said, “I get on with them great, they’re lovely.” One relative said, “They have always been fantastic with personal care, that side of things is super. He always looks well cared for and they are very patient and caring.”

Staff were supported by an acting manager who understood the challenges they faced. The acting and area managers recognised the positive impact and efforts of staff during our inspection – staff told us this had not always been the case in the past 18 months.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support met people’s needs and preferences. A culture of group activities and a group environment had developed over the years, which was not in line with good practice. Whilst people were settled and safe, they did not always have the individual choices that other people may take for granted. For instance, there were two separate houses but there had been a recent expectation that bathing facilities were shared. The gardens had no separation or recognition of difference, and only one entrance to the bungalows was used in practice, meaning staff and visitors would walk through one home to get to the other.

People’s communications needs were well met by staff who understood them. Records were not always up to date with people’s communication preferences and styles. The acting manager was updating care plans at the time of inspection.

Staff understood people’s individualities and needed to be enabled to support them better. Staff were always respectful of the things that made people unique and interacted tactfully and personably at all times.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence. They needed to do more to give all people the opportunities to develop their own skills and independence. For instance, meals were provided and one person said they loved the menus, but there needed to be more focus on people taking control of their own shopping, menu considerations and preparation. This happened at times but was not a consistent part of the culture. Relatives we spoke with felt people needed greater access to social, creative and vocational opportunities.

People understood their rights. Where they had capacity they were fully aware of the support they received and the choices on offer. They could contribute their views about how the service was run and there was opportunity to be involved in the provider’s recruitment campaigns.

People were supported to maintain relationships important to them.

Care plans contained a range of pertinent information needed to support people to be as independent as possible at home. Some care plans needed more work, whilst others contained good levels of detail.

People and relatives described a flexible approach to care. Staff were responsive to them changing their mind and acted appropriately when people’s needs changed. One person said, “They know me well and they provide excellent support, no matter what.”

External professionals raised no concerns about the responsiveness of staff, or the acting manager in terms of their oversight of people’s needs. Care records demonstrated most core needs had been reviewed and meaningfully incorporated into people’s care planning. There were however some significant improvements required in relation to person-centred approached to people’s increased needs at specific times (and care documentation needed to better reflect this).

Staff felt well supported by the acting and area manager. They had not always been supported effectively during the past 18 months and had demonstrated resilience to still provide people with compassionate quality care and support.

Staff received a consistent induction, supervision, training and support, which enabled them to meet people’s care needs.

The provider had a range of policies and procedures in place to support staff wellbeing. Recruitment of staff was an ongoing challenge, but the provider was exploring a range of options and actively tried to reduce agency usage.