Old Alresford Cottage

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 service 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 felt well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

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.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind, caring and knew people. People confirmed that they felt respected and listened to. Comments from people included, “They are all so lovely and kind to me here” and “The carers are lovely, they really do care.” Comments from relatives included, “It’s obvious they care and respect [person]”, “All the staff I’ve met are friendly, helpful and know here” and “Staff are amazing with her; they give her space and time.”

Staff spoke warmly and passionately about people. They saw people as individuals and knew their individual likes, dislikes, preferences and interests. One staff member told us, “Everything on care plan about the person; how many children, what they like doing, hobbies and what profession they did, so that we can read and engage with them about the things they did.” Leaders told us how they spent time in communal areas and working alongside staff. This enabled them to be accessible to people and identify any concerns or areas for development.

Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Professionals told us staff treated them and people with respect and kindness.

We saw people being treated with care and kindness. Interactions between people and staff were warm and respectful. People were engaged in conversation and staff appeared genuinely interested in people and their interests. Staff encouraged people to engage with one another, when 1 person entered the lounge, staff supporting another person turned their chair around so that they could see each other and were able to wave. We observed people being supported to choose a seat and maintain their balance when walking; staff supported them at their pace and gave them time to choose where they wanted to sit. We observed 1 person appeared uncomfortable in their chosen seat, a staff member saw this and offered them the option to change seats, when this was accepted by the person, they then supported them to move to another seat of their choice. Leaders spent time in communal areas engaging in conversation and activities with people.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

People told us they had choices and were able to choose how they wanted to spend their time. People and their relatives mostly confirmed they were involved in making decisions about the care and support provided and that there were activities available to people. Some relatives told us their loved ones seemed to prefer spending more time in their bedrooms than in communal spaces. These relatives mostly felt the service were doing what they could to encourage people to engage in activities whilst respecting their choices and preferences. One person told us how they were able to choose who supported them to access the community. Comments from relatives included, “[Person] is not a morning person, and they will keep coming back until she is ready to get up, they respect that. She is happier and more engaged”, “Staff try to encourage dad to socialise, but he still has the choice”, “[Person] enjoys the activities, especially the flower arranging, dancing and colouring. She’s a social animal, that’s important to her”, “They are really helping her with personal things, like writing cards. They realise what is important to her” and “There are lots of activities, they go out, music, bingo, all sorts of things go on in there.”

Staff spoke about people warmly and were able to demonstrate their knowledge about people’s preferences, likes and dislikes. Staff appeared genuinely interested in people and their experiences. People were seen as individuals with unique backgrounds. One staff member told us, “The person is an individual beyond the diagnosis of dementia and rather than those diagnosis limit them, when looking after them try to help them be as independent as possible and make choices for themselves.” The leadership team understood the importance of supporting people to have access to activities that were meaningful to them and to have access to their local community. Staff and leaders were able to share examples of how people were supported with their personalised interests and people were familiar with the local area and were able to tell us about their visits to the surrounding area and towns.

Overall, we observed people being supported with choices. Such as, where to sit, what activity they wanted to do and food and drink choices. Early on in the assessment we observed mealtime experiences which were not always positive for people. For example, not having drink choices offered, not everyone receiving a serviette, some people sat at the table waiting over 20 minutes for their meals and condiments not being made available. However, as the assessment progressed, we found the mealtime experience had improved for people and needed time to become established and embedded within the service. We saw people being encouraged to engage in activities and conversations with each other and staff.

The service had some systems and processes in place to provide people with access to meaningful activities and to the local community. A planned programme of activities was advertised. The importance of respecting people’s choices was emphasised in people’s records. Where a person had been assessed to lack capacity to make specific decisions, staff were still encouraged to focus on offering the person choices and involving them in decisions as able. People’s preferences were recorded in their care planning documentation. This included whether they preferred staff of a particular gender to provide their care. Communication plans described how people expressed their choices and plans included information about what people liked to wear, their favoured meals and drinks. Independence with tasks was encouraged and for example, care plans described what people could do for themselves and what they needed help with. A service user book had recently been implemented. The book had been well designed with lots of accessible information aimed at helping people be informed and able to exercise as much choice and control as possible. Monthly spot checks were undertaken to check whether staff were offering people choice and respecting their privacy and dignity. However, we found the records of these spot checks would benefit from being more evidence based.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Leaders spoke passionately about supporting and enabling staff to deliver person-centred care, developing their knowledge and skills and supporting career progression. Staff mostly told us they enjoyed working at the service and that the leadership team were supportive. Comments from staff included, “I would talk to the managers their doors are always open and you just knock, and you go in” and “Approachable, always open to listening.” Some staff told us they didn’t always feel their contribution was recognised and valued by the service, but they got recognition from their colleagues.

There were systems in place to ensure staff views were sought, listened to and acted on where required. For example, staff completed a satisfaction survey which was reviewed by the management team. Leaders monitored staff wellbeing and were alert for signs for any staff struggling at work to enable them to offer support. Systems were in place to provide staff with support that recognised their diversity. For example, staff had been provided with a quiet area to pray. Staff received regular support and supervision with a member of the management team. Regular staff meetings were held and were an opportunity for staff to provide feedback and raise concerns. Staff were encouraged and supported to develop their professional and personal development.