Hailsham 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

We observed positive interactions between staff and people. We observed staff treating people with kindness and compassion. People and their relatives gave mixed feedback about being treated with kindness and compassion. People did not always have choice and control of their lives. We found examples where people had not been offered choice and staff indicated there were some restrictions in place. While the people we spoke to expressed that they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found care and elements of their care that did not meet the expected standards. This was fed back to the provider. They took appropriate action and put plans in place to resolve the concerns highlighted. Staff told us they felt supported by mangers.

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 their relatives gave us mixed feedback about whether staff were kind and treated them with respect. Comments included, “Yes, thank you very happy here. I never need to grumble, staff look after me very well” and “Looked after very well. I feel safe, never frightened. Very caring staff. No aggression.” A relative told us, “Couldn’t wish for nicer people caring for [person], treat [person] with dignity and thought.” However, another relative told us, “Some staff are kind and caring, some are not, mainly agency staff.”

Staff demonstrated a compassionate attitude towards people when supporting and engaging with them. They understood how to provide care in a dignified way. A staff member told us, “We care. All of us. It can be demanding sometimes, but that is their illness. We treat everybody with respect, and ensure they are always clean and tidy.” Another staff member told us, “The residents here are lovely, I’m proud to work here.”

Healthcare professionals gave positive feedback about staff treating people with kindness. Comments included, “[Staff are] always kind and respectful”, “During my visits I have seen all the residents who have been in the communal areas wearing clean and tidy clothes, hair clean and tidy, hands clean” and “We have found the staff very helpful and the continuity with staff and knowing the residents is really noticeable. Hailsham House is a lovely caring residential home that we are proud to work with on a regular basis.”

We saw that people were comfortable in the presence of staff. People approached staff freely and engaged with them throughout the day. Staff treated people in a respectful, friendly, and positive manner. We observed one staff member sitting with a person who was distressed, identifying the reason they were upset and providing gentle and kind reassurance. They stayed with the person until they were feeling better.

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.

People told us were able to make choices each day. Comments included, “I have choices in my care” and “Food is lovely [with] menu choices. Happy with my room. I do join in with the activities.” However, another person told us “I do make choices, but sometimes choices are made for me.” Another person told us, “Only thing is they do get me up too early. I have asked them not so early, but it has not changed. And also going to bed too early.” During the assessment these comments were fed back to the manager who agreed to review people's preferences and update their care plans.

Staff knew people well. They were generally able to tell us what people were able to do for themselves and where they needed support, for example with mobility or their meals. However, a staff member told us, “They always sit there. They like orange juice and they want to go to bed at 6 pm.” When asked if they offer a different choice or time to go to bed, a staff member told us “But that’s what they always do or want.” There was no evidence that staff offered a choice on a daily basis. Staff confirmed that there were numerous opportunities provided to people to enjoy different activities, events and outings which had a positive impact on their wellbeing and quality of life. One staff member said, “We will try anything to encourage people to join activities. We have special events and also celebrate birthdays and special dates such as anniversaries.” Whilst we saw staff supported people to do what they liked and wanted to do throughout the day, it was identifiable when the activity person on Willow unit was away, the atmosphere and engagement was noticeably lower. This was acknowledged by the management, and they will work with the staff team to address this.

We observed the mealtime experience on all units. Tables were set for people with cloth tablecloths and napkins, the meal was homecooked and nutritious, with either squash or water to drink. People were given aids to assist them in eating independently, for example special neck aprons and ante spill plates. People were seen to be offered choices of meals in the dining areas but not the people who remained in their rooms for their meals. There were no pictorial menus for people, but staff said that had been discussed. There was a lack of communication aids seen in use, and doors to people’s own rooms were not all identifiable which would not support people in finding their way to their own rooms to remain independent. We saw that some people liked to walk, and staff walked with ensuring that they had the correct walking aid. We noted that clocks in people’s bedrooms weren’t working, and that meant people would not be orientated to time and that may impact on peoples decisions and independence.

Peoples individual care plans contained information about how staff should promote people’s independence. For example, describing what aspects of personal care people were able to do for themselves and what support was required. For example, washing, dressing and eating. These were reviewed regularly, but no changes noted, despite a deterioration in their health. It may be beneficial to record how they were managing and if adaptions were needed to the original care plan to actively promote and maintain independence. People had appropriate equipment to support and maximise their independence and the provider had effective systems in place to ensure they were serviced and checked regularly. The provider was developing links with the local community and optimised opportunities to support people to access the local community and for the community to access the new cafe.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives regarding staff responsiveness to their needs. A person told us, “Bells answered quickly, no complaints. Very happy with my care, staff and food.” However, comments from relatives included, “[Person] is supposed to be on half-hourly observations but that doesn’t happen.”, “We used to sign in on a visit and go and see the unit manager first but now we just go straight to [persons] room and see how long it is before a member of staff appears. It’s normally at least 45 minutes. We have taken our concerns to the unit manager, but nothing really happened about it”, “There is a lack of communication from home staff to family. There is a lack of involvement in the care planning” and “They are not keeping an eye on her. They are supposed to be doing half hourly checks on her, but it is not happening.” Records indicated that people had received observations but had not always been clearly documented. This was fed back to the provider who addressed these concerns during the assessment process.

Staff understood people and how to respond to their immediate needs. This included knowledge of how people’s health or wellbeing may change throughout the day. A staff member told us, “We know when people are not well and act immediately, call the nurse and then doctor.” Another staff member told us, “We monitor people discreetly to make sure they are safe. We can then intercede to prevent a fall or incident.”

We saw staff react promptly when people needed immediate support. This included when people were unwell and in response to call bells.

Staff told us they felt well supported by managers and the organisation. Comments included, “They ensure we can give feedback by regular staff meetings, supervisions and team meetings”, “We do have staff room and we get breaks” and “I love working here, seen a lot of changes here and in the surrounding area.” To accommodate working parents staff hours were flexible and staff confirmed this. One staff member said, “Really happy here, good with my hours to accommodate my young family.” Staff had detailed job descriptions that governed their role in the home. Some staff told us they were able to extend their role and were supported by the organisation to do this. One staff member told us that she was currently learning venepuncture (taking of blood), and another had become a medicine giver.

Peoples individual care plans contained information about how staff should promote people’s independence. For example, they described what aspects of personal care people were able to do for themselves and what support was required. These were reviewed regularly. care plans for some people stated they dressed independently. However, from talking to people and staff it became apparent that the people were no longer doing it themselves and staff were dressing them.