Mulberry 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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. Staff were not always well supported. However, people were cared for or treated with dignity and respect. The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to staffing. Staff were not always well supported following incidents and accidents.

This service scored 62 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. A relative said, “All staff are friendly and welcoming, they have gone over and above the support expectations.” We observed that staff spoke to and about people kindly and respectfully.

The service treated people as individuals. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture, unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. For example, 1 person had the support they needed to have food that met their cultural or religious requirements. People were supported to keep in contact with their relatives during their stays at Mulberry House.

The service promoted people’s independence. People had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Records showed people’s independence had been promoted with daily living activities such as cleaning their bedrooms and doing their laundry. People had accessed a range of activities including visiting parks, shopping centres, farms, bowling, trampolining and meals out.

The service 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. A relative told us, “If I feel the service needs some advice as to how best to support my [relative], I email the manager, and they always respond as soon as possible. Next time I visit I can see they have taken on board what I have said.”

The service did not always make sure staff received appropriate support. For example, A staff member had not been well supported for their time off work following an injury they sustained while supporting a person on their own when it had been agreed they would not, due to known risks. Leaders were unable to locate or evidence an on-call policy for managers or a lone working policy for staff. These increased risks relating to staff wellbeing. In response to our concerns, the provider reviewed their systems and processes for supporting staff after incidents and accidents. Leaders informed us although there was no policy, staff had received training on lone working via e-learning.