Hylands House 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 75 (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.

People described staff as kind and caring. One person told us, “The staff are brilliant, no complaints about them whatsoever.” Another person said, “It is not fun getting old, but everything is hunky dory for me here, in many ways it is just right.” A third person commented, “The staff here are really brilliant, they are all good.”

One relative described how staff demonstrated care towards people and their wider family. They told us how an elderly family member regularly visited the home and, “Staff are always kind and always look out for him too. It gives us assurances as a family.” Another relative, whose family member had recently moved to the service told us, “Our relationship has gone back to being a dad, daughter and son in law once again. I am so happy.” Several relatives told us how staff helped celebrate their loved one’s birthday with balloons and cakes and making them feel special.

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.

Staff knew people well. People’s protected characteristics such as religious beliefs, sexuality and disability were reflected in their care records and staff could talk knowledgeably about what was important to people. One person told us, “Yes, they [care staff] are sweeties. They bring me snacks, and even a bunch of flowers.”

One relative said, “Staff know [Name] well. They always talk about her as a person and not a patient or a number.”

Care plans recorded people’s personal preferences around their presentation. For example, 1 person preferred to be clean shaven, and their hair kept short.

Care plans also indicated if people preferred to be cared for by male or female care staff and staff were seen respecting these choices. The provider arranged for a hairdresser to visit the home weekly, and a manicurist once a fortnight to give people autonomy over their presentation.

The provider arranged for different church groups to visit the home to support people’s religious needs. Where this was not possible for 1 person, the registered manager supported them to attend their faith meetings via a video call.

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

Care plans promoted people’s independence by describing what people could do for themselves, where they needed prompting or encouragement and when they needed the full support of staff. One staff member told us, “We encourage people to do it first and be as independent as possible. When they can’t, we assist.”

Where people needed equipment to support their independence, this was in place.

There was no designated staff member to provide people with activities or opportunities for social engagement. During our inspection we saw individual staff members sitting and drawing with people or looking through magazines but there were limited opportunities for people to participate in meaningful and social activity. Some entertainment and events were facilitated by external sources, but there was a lack of organised outings into the local community.

However, people who lived in the home, did not express any dissatisfaction with their opportunities for social engagement, both inside the home and the wider community. Some relatives told us their loved one mostly chose to spend their time in their bedroom, and their preferences were respected.

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.

People in their bedrooms had their call bells within reach which meant they could call for support when they needed it. Where some people were unable to use a call bell and were not safe to mobilise independently, they had sensor mats which alerted staff of any risks.

Staff were observed offering an almost continuous presence in communal areas. Staff communicated effectively to ensure 1 staff member remained in the lounge, whilst others were busy responding to people in their bedrooms.

Staff worked as a team to respond to people’s requests for assistance with managers supporting staff where required. Call bell audits were carried out to review the timeliness of staff responses and identify any barriers to timely interventions.

Care records we reviewed guided staff on how to respond to people when they were experiencing distress and included information on tone of voice, touch and validation, as well as ‘secondary strategies’ such as changing environment, engagement and conversation prompts.

When 1 person became upset in the communal lounge, a staff member sat with them, gave them reassurance and enquired whether they were in any pain. However, whilst staff monitored people for safety, there were some missed opportunities for engagement. We found further development could be explored to enhance the day to day lives of people wishing to share in company and activity.

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

Staff told us they enjoyed their work and felt supported by their managers and the wider staff team. They told us they were confident sharing concerns with them. Staff described reasonable adjustments to support their health and wellbeing at work where required. One staff member told us “It’s like a family. We get along and help each other. The manager will help too, I can talk to them about anything, they know us well.”

The provider’s operations manager told us of the low staff turnover at the home, and the longevity of much of the workforce. They felt this was because staff were paid fairly, valued and treated well.

The provider and registered manager were proactive in supporting staff wellbeing and resilience. For example, the registered manager had arranged for an external organisation to provide menopause guidance and support for staff. The provider had adjusted their annual leave policy to allow 1 staff member to take more than 3 weeks annual leave at once. This had given the staff member the opportunity to travel abroad and spend time with their family.

We saw an initiative that invited staff to reflect on ‘why they were proud to work at Hylands House’. Staff responses included ‘The obvious commitment our staff have to improve the quality of life for our residents’ and ‘Such a feel good factor, knowing or hoping I have made someone’s day, whether it’s personal care and making that person feel comfortable, or just being there for someone and keeping them company. Making them laugh, spending good times with them, these all make me proud’.