Hutton Manor 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 the same. 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.

People described staff as kind, caring and approachable. Interactions felt warm and personal, contributing to a welcoming, family‑like atmosphere. During our visit we observed a staff member greet a person warmly from the doorway, blow a kiss and offer a gentle cuddle, which the person clearly welcomed. One person told us, “There are no bad staff; they are all amenable.” Another person told us, “They are nice to me.” Another person told us it feels like family and that being able to ‘have a laugh’ with staff was important to them. A relative said that when their family member was stressed one evening, staff invited them to the lounge to help them calm down, demonstrating sensitive, person‑centred support. However, one relative told us they had observed an abrupt response to a call bell. We discussed this with the management team who addressed this straight away.

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.

The provider treated people as individuals by recognising personal preferences, tailoring care and communication, and promoting independence and choice. Staff interactions were warm and respectful, and people told us they felt known as individuals.

One person told us, “They are the best here.” Another person told us, “They are really helpful.” One relative told us, “It is really nice here; all the staff are very nice and friendly they treat me with respect.”

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

Staff promoted people’s independence by supporting them to lead their daily routines in ways that reflected their personal preferences. Support was offered only where it was needed and in ways people felt comfortable with.

People told us they were enabled to remain as independent as possible. One person said, “You can do what you like, I get myself washed and dressed. I” Another person told us, “I like to get dressed and I make my own bed; I don’t strip the bed, they do that.” A further person explained they were largely independent but received safe support when needed.

People had access to activities and social opportunities, with staff respecting personal preferences including when people chose not to participate. Celebrations and routines were tailored to each person.

One person told us, “I get a sheet of what’s going on. They do try, I’m happy with TV and books.” Another relative told us, “There’s lots going on it’s like a party sometimes when we come in.” Another relative told us,” There is lots of entertainment. They always listen to you. When it was [name of person] birthday, she didn’t want a fuss. They brought her birthday cake to her room, which was very nice of them.”

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 told us staff were aware of their needs. During the assessment, call bells were attended to without delay, reflecting a responsive and person-centred approach to care.

The provider did not consistently promote or prioritise the wellbeing of staff, and systems intended to support and enable the workforce were not always effective. This meant staff were not always supported to deliver person‑centred care.

We found that some staff supervisions were not up to date. A few staff told us they had not received a supervision for several months and records we reviewed confirmed some gaps in supervision frequency. However, the majority of these had been completed. This was raised with management, who advised they had developed a plan to ensure all outstanding supervisions would be completed.

Staff feedback regarding management accessibility and communication was mixed. While some staff felt able to approach managers, others told us they did not always feel comfortable raising concerns or speaking openly with the management team within the home. This affected how confident some staff felt in seeking support. We discussed this with senior management who addressed these concerns straight away.

There were also varying experiences relating to rotas and break arrangements. Some staff reported no concerns, while others told us they did not always know when their breaks would take place or found that rotas were subject to change without clear communication. One staff member said, “I don’t think we are treated properly. There seems to be a lot of favouritism shown by management.” Another told us, “Breaks are an issue for us. No one seems to take the lead with regards breaks. There is a lot of confusion around this. Rotas are also a problem for us. We don’t know what we are doing from one week to the other.” This was raised with the provider and actioned this straight away.