George Hythe 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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 80 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were mostly supported by kind and caring staff who we observed treated people with dignity. Some people spoke fondly about the staff working at the service. For example, 1 person told us, “You can always approach staff, they are very friendly.” One relative told us, “They [staff] are very caring thoughtful people.” However, not everyone was satisfied, and some feedback we received from people and their relatives indicated people did not always receive dignified care. One person told us they sometimes had to wait for prolonged periods in soiled clothing. One relative told us, “[Relative’s] teeth are not cleaned, and their nails were filthy. [Relative’s] hair is not always washed and it smells.” Another relative described to us that they had noticed a decline in people’s appearance since moving to the service. We also received concerns about the cleanliness of clothing and bedding. For example, 1 relative told us, “There have been some instances of bedding stained and smelling of urine. [Relatives] pyjamas were put back in their drawer dirty and smelling of urine.”

Staff received training in relation to the delivery of dignified care, and the registered manager demonstrated commitment to supporting people and the staffing team.

We received mixed feedback from partners about the quality of care people received. Feedback from 1 health professional indicated staff were caring and respectful towards people and ensured people’s needs were met. However, other feedback indicated people were not always provided with clean bedding.

The staff we spoke with as part of this assessment were kind and caring. They spoke with passion about supporting people, and we observed humble and kind interactions between people and staff. People were well kempt, wearing clean clothes and appeared comfortable around the presence of care staff and leaders.

People were mostly treated with respect and individuality was celebrated. One person told us they were supported by staff to engage in their religious beliefs. However, we also received concerns that people’s clothing and other personal items had gone missing. For example, 1 relative told us, “A lot of stuff has gone missing. I’ve ended up having to replace them.” Another relative told us, “Toiletries went missing. I found that they had no pants or socks. Even their shoes went missing.”

Staff received training to support their understanding of how to respect people’s individuality. Staff and leaders we spoke with knew the people they were supporting well.

We saw staff supporting people in a person-centred manner. People had good rapport with care staff and leaders.

Information about people’s life experiences and personal preferences was available in their care plans. This supported a person centred approach to care.

People were supported to make daily choices and maintain control of their routines. One person told us, “I like the food, there’s always a choice.” Another person told us, “We get to choose what we watch on the TV.” Joyful and friendly staff were available to support people with a range of activities. People had opportunity to request things to do. One person told us, “The activities are very good.” Another person said, “I have my little activities I like doing. Staff have offered to go to shop to get my colouring pens and activity sheets.”

Staff and leaders described how they supported people to maintain their independence.

We saw people being offered choice as part of their daily care by staff.

The providers systems and processes promoted people to have choice and control of their care. For example, people were given opportunity to express their views and wishes during resident meetings.

We received mixed feedback about the responsiveness of staff. One person told us, “Staff help me when I need it.” Another person said, “My call bell is answered quickly.” However, some people expressed concern that staff were not always available to respond when people called for assistance. One person told us they sometimes had to wait for prolonged periods for food, drink or soiled clothing to be changed after pressing their call bell. One relative told us, “I don’t think they [staff] respond that quickly. I’ve heard the call bells constantly going off.”

Staff were passionate about meeting people’s immediate needs. One staff member told us, “I feel there are enough staff, and we get to call bells quickly.” However, some staff indicated people sometimes had to wait for longer during mealtimes because staff can be very busy. One staff member told us, “Staff are trying their best to respond to the needs of the residents as much as they could.”

We observed staff actively engaging with people and working proactively to meet people’s immediate needs. We saw staff respond to call bells promptly, but noted at times there were periods of high call bell activation, indicating periods of increased demand on staff.

Staff we spoke with as part of this assessment felt George Hythe House was a very good place to work. Staff told us they felt communication was good, and that their voice was being heard and respected by leaders. Staff told us they felt they received adequate training that supported them in their role and enabled their development.

Staff well-being was valued and supported by a variety of internal processes and external services made available by the provider. For example, specially trained staff were available to support colleagues with their mental health, and an external health and wellbeing support service was funded and made available for staff by the provider. Posters were displayed promoting the use of these services. Mechanisms were in place to celebrate employee success and boost morale. For example, each month, 1 employee was named employee of the month, and their success was celebrated within newsletters and throughout the care home. Awards were given for length of service, and the provider had their own annual awards program celebrating success.