Beeston View

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

We reviewed 2 quality statement for this key question. People told us they could have friends and family to visit without any restrictions. People were supported to be as independent as they could whilst also being safe and care plans identified the areas of support required. Care plans were personalised and reflected peoples needs and It was evident that people and their relatives were involved in the care planning process. Relatives told us they always received a warm welcome. People and relatives told us they were able to make choices about their day-to-day activity, that staff knew them well and are encouraged to remain as independent as possible. We saw the provider collaborated with health and social care professionals that had the peoples individualised needs at the centre of peoples care and support. We observed kind, caring and compassionate interactions between people and staff. People were treated with dignity and respect, and able to make choices about how they spent their day. People enjoyed visits from family and friends and a variety of activities in the communal areas.

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.

People and relatives told us that staff treated them with Kindness, compassion and dignity. Relatives gave examples of when and how their loved ones have been treated with kindness and dignity.

Staff were focused on compassionate care of residents, they took time to get to know residents, and were aware of how different residents had different needs and preferences. Staff spoke of the importance of treating residents with respect and maintaining their dignity and promoting their independence, and were all aware of the importance of confidentiality. Staff would take time to chat with residents and used their conversation clouds for meaningful conversations.

Feedback from partners including the local authority was mostly positive. Additional information through cases had shown that the provider and registered manager have respect for each others roles and partners see the provider as demonstrating kindness, respect, compassion and dignity.

Observation confirmed staff demonstrated respect, dignity and were attuned to peoples emotional well being in a caring and compassionate manner.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

Visitors were observed in the home and one visitor told us they could visit whenever they wanted to. The hairdresser was visiting the home at the time of the assessment and we observed several people choosing to have their hair cut or styled.

Staff understood the importance of individual choice, and were aware of resident's preferences through care plans and the getting to know you books. Activities co-coordinators came in through the week, and carers were responsible for weekend activities. They had regular themed days for events like Euro-vision or the Grand National, and had monthly events like the Bus trips, pub nights and darts competitions. Some of the staff we spoke to felt that more meaningful activities could be introduced. Daily activities were sometimes limited to jigsaws and colouring. If resident's did not want to get involved in certain activities they were offered alternatives.

Staff provided support in ways that promoted people's independence, choice and control. Staff supported people with activities of their choice, they were seen to knock on people's doors before entering their rooms and provided support in a caring and compassionate way, including when people became distressed and staff were observed promoting a person's independence whilst being compassionate and kind.

Care plans were written in a person centred way and reflected people's choices and preferences. Plans were regularly reviewed and people were involved in this process. The provider had a policy in place 'Autonomy, independence and choice', which promoted people's freedom to choose and take control of their lives. Care plans were detailed and mostly reflected people's preferences, although one person's did not include their preference to have female staff support. Care plans promoted people's independence, advising what people could do for themselves and what they required support with from staff. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decision processes were in place to support with decision making when required. However, one person's relative had signed consent forms on their behalf without any evidence that they had the legal authority to do so. There were no care plans in place to reflect when people had a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard authorised, to ensure staff were fully aware of any agreed restrictions and how to support appropriately.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.