Figham House

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 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 service 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 told us staff were kind and compassionate and treated them with respect. People felt staff listened to them and staff knew them well. Comments included, “They (staff) are very kind and they come in and talk and make you feel good. They definitely know me. They know what I like, I am quite happy here” and “The staff are good, they treat me well. Yes, they care, it’s the way they speak to you.”

The service 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. Each person had a ‘life plan’ which contained information about where they were born, their family, friends and hobbies. These were used to support people as individuals. For example, one person liked trains and the service had arranged for them to join a local train enthusiasts group. A staff member told us, “It’s not a one size fits all. Everyone is an individual.”

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Staff did not always respond to people’s choices in the moment. Care plans did not always contain enough information to provide staff with options about alternative care if people chose to refuse care. Some observations during our inspection visit supported this. For example, a person who did not want to move was not given the choice to remain where they were. One person told us, “Sometimes they (staff) tell me what to do and when to go to bed, and I don’t like that.” Care plans directed staff to support people’s choices. A staff member told us, “To help people to make decisions for themselves I present [people] with two choices and try not to overwhelm them and then they will make the choice for themselves what they want.” Another staff member told us about making best interest decisions, “We would involve them (people) in the decision and or family members/Lasting Power of Attorneys. Anyone involved in the person’s care should be included.”

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff respond to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Information about how to complain was displayed throughout the home. People told us staff were responsive to their requests. Comments included, “Sometimes I ask someone to help me and they (staff) do. They come promptly” and “You have a little wait but not too long.”

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. Staff told us they were well supported. A staff member told us, “Work life balance is great. It makes such a difference for [people].”