Hamble Heights

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good.

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 received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.

People and their relatives commented, “They’re (staff) all very kind here, we’re well cared for,” “The people that work here are marvellous, fantastic people,” The staff are wonderful. All of them,” “The night staff are incredible too” and “It’s lovely. I couldn’t fault the place.”

We saw all staff treating people with kindness and respect. They knew who liked to keep their room doors open and who did not.

Staff were patient and used appropriate styles of interaction with people. Staff were calm, focused, and attentive to people’s emotions and support, such as sensory sensitivities.

Staff showed warmth and respect when interacting with people. Staff saw people as their equal and created a warm and inclusive atmosphere. Staff relationships with people were caring and supportive.

Staff spoke confidently about people’s specific needs and how they liked to be supported. Through our conversations with staff, it was clear they were committed, kind and compassionate towards people they supported. They described how they observed people’s moods and responded appropriately.

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.

Care plans contained information about people’s history, which provided a timeline of significant events which had impacted on them, such as certain life events, including marriage, children, occupations, hobbies and other important people in their lives. This helped staff to provide appropriate, individualised care and support.

We saw staff treating people as individuals in line with their personal, cultural, social, and religious beliefs. Staff ensured full consideration of people’s relevant protected characteristics.

People were supported to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them, this included access to their friends and family. For example, care plans documented the importance of people seeing their family and friends.

Throughout our visits we saw staff involving people in their care and allowing them time to make their wishes known. People’s individual wishes were acted upon, such as how they wanted to spend their time.

Staff knew people well and provided care and support which was person-centred and took account of their needs, wishes and preferences.

People’s care plans provided detail of people’s individual care and supported needs. They were broken down into sections, making it easier to find relevant information. Examples included, physical and mental health, emotional support, nutrition, continence, skin care, mobility, and personal care.

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

Care was personalised and staff worked to deliver person-centred care which maintained people’s dignity with understanding.

Throughout our visits we saw people being encouraged by staff to be as independent as possible. For example, whilst mobilising around the home, joining in activities, and eating independently with the aid of adaptations, such as plate guards.

Staff asked people if they needed any support even if they were known to be independent to ensure they felt cared for. People were encouraged to remain as mobile as possible.

Activities formed an important part of people’s lives. People engaged in a variety of person-centred activities. We received positive feedback from people about the activities provided. For example, a person told us there was “Always something organised.” In one area we observed a ‘positive thoughts’ activity facilitated by an external person. In another area, people and staff were gathering and waiting for a game of bingo to begin. People told us, and we observed, that visitors were welcome in the home.

There was a range of appropriate equipment to support and maximise people’s independence and outcomes.

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 felt, in the main, staff responded to their needs in a timely manner.

We observed staff were present and accessible to people and responded promptly when people required their support. Staff were alert to people’s needs and took time to observe, communicate and engage people in discussions about their immediate needs.

Call bells were not ringing for long periods of time during our visits. One person commented, “I press the button, and they come along straightaway. There is an emergency button and a general button. If an emergency, they burst through the door very quickly.”

Staff knew people well and could recognise if a person was worried or unhappy. This meant any concerns about people’s well-being could be identified and followed up.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Some staff did not feel valued by the management team, and this had led to mixed feelings about a sense of belonging and ability to positively contribute to decision making. The provider was in the process of addressing these concerns. We found no evidence of this impacting on people.

The service was working hard to instil a culture of care in which staff truly felt valued and promoted people’s individuality, protected their rights, and enabled them to develop and flourish.

The provider valued reflection, learning and improvement and were receptive to challenge and welcomed fresh perspectives.