Hepworth 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 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 changed to Inadequate: This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Staff did not consistently show respect for peoples’ privacy and dignity. There were instances where care was delivered against a person's wishes, indicating an infringement of their rights.

This service scored 35 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect

their privacy and dignity. Staff did not consistently respect people's decisions. We identified

instances where staff delivered care against a person's wishes. This action had not been

properly assessed as appropriate, despite the registered manager telling us the person had full

capacity to make their own decisions. This contravened their right to refuse care and indicated

they had been assaulted by staff. However, we observed people were spoken to with kindness

and people told us staff were kind. One person said, “[Staff] are nice enough people, polite and

they ask what I want.” Another said, “Staff are kind, that’s all I need. They do know me well to

help me the way I want and they ask for my permission, always ask for everything.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or ensure that care, support, and

treatment met their needs and preferences. In cases where people had refused support, staff

proceeded to deliver care without respecting their choices or decisions. There was no

assessment to determine if people understood the consequences of their decisions, and the

provider failed to consider their unique needs, strengths, and cultural backgrounds.

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and

have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People's right to refuse

care was not respected. Where people would decline support, staff delivered care in a manner

that violated their human rights, and individuals did not always have control over their own lives

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views, or wishes. Staff did not

respond to people's needs promptly or take action to alleviate discomfort, concern, or distress.

Although the registered manager told us it was policy to seek medical advice following any

suspected head injury, we found instances where people had sustained potential head injuries,

and staff failed to seek immediate medical advice or intervention. This put people at risk of harm

and ill health.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or

enable staff to deliver person-centred care. We found multiple examples where staff had been

subjected to assault from people using the service. The registered manager told us they would

speak with staff following these events to ensure they were ok and to check if they needed to go

home. However, there was no process in place to debrief staff or to learn lessons from these

events to prevent future occurrences and to protect staff. There was no evidence staff had been

given information about what actions they could take further if they wanted to