The Poets

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

People did not always receive a timely response when using their call bell. People were respected as individuals and were treated with kindness, compassion, and dignity. People were supported to maintain friendships and receive visitors. Staff felt valued by their leaders and colleagues.

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 told us they received dignified and compassionate care. Staff were described as kind, courteous and “very nice people.” A person said, “No one has ever said anything disrespectful. Even with personal things, when they have to help you, I’ve never felt any embarrassment.” Another person said, “Everybody knocks and waits before coming in, without fail. No one has ever come into my room without knocking first.”

Staff told us there was a person-centre culture and this was central to everything they did. Staff spoke about providing compassionate and respectful care. Feedback from staff included, “My role is to make sure that everyone is okay, and we value everyone and treat everyone according to what they like and respect their opinion.” And “As a carer you need to contribute to their lives to make a difference and make them feel valued.”

We received positive feedback from a professional who had recently visited the service. They described staff as kind and calm. They said staff were understanding of others and engaged with people they were supporting.

Staff demonstrated warm and respectful engagement with people. We observed people enjoying banter with staff and interactions were appropriate and dignified. Staff sought consent before providing care and support and people’s decisions and choices were respected.

People told us they were treated as individuals by staff who were kind and affectionate. A person said, “When staff come in to provide personal care, they draw the curtains.” Another person said, “I wouldn’t say they could always make sure you go to bed exactly when you want, but they try their best to do what you want.”

Staff knew people well and spoke warmly about the people they were supporting. A member of staff said, “We introduce ourselves. When we do personal care, we tell stories. I love talking with them.” Other staff provided different examples of how people like to receive their care. A staff member said, “Everyone is different. I remember everyone’s preferences, there are so many. But that’s what makes people special.”

We saw people were able to make choices and decisions throughout the day. This included about what to eat, how to spend their time and care preferences. We saw people spending time chatting with friends in the bistro and receiving visitors in their bedrooms or communal areas.

Processes supported a culture of person-centred care. The senior team used governance processes, feedback from people and checks on staff practice to ensure people’s wishes and choices were understood and respected. Regular reviews captured people’s experiences and care records were updated to reflect any changes.

People were supported to retain as much independence as possible. A person said, “There’s no rules. There’s no problem for example if you want to go to church on a Sunday. I don’t, but some do.” A person told us staff provided encouragement and support to retain some independence with dressing. Another person used assistive technology to support their communication.

Staff supported people in a way that encouraged their independence. This included independence with aspects of daily living, personal care, and communication. Staff worked with people to achieve outcomes that were personal and realistic to them. This gave people greater independence and control over their lives and care.

We saw people were able to have control over aspects of their lives at a level and pace that suited them. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible. We observed people managing their own medicines and making choices about meals and activities.

Processes and care planning guided staff to promote people’s independence and choice. People were enabled to have control over care and lives through effective care planning and review. Staff training supported a person-centred approach.

People consistently told us they experienced a poor response when using call bells. Comments included, “Sometimes I’ve waited so long, I’ve forgotten that I have rung.” And “There’s quite a long wait, but they always apologise and say they’re doing their best.” A person told us poor call bell response time had an impact on their medical condition. They said of call bells, “It’s the only problem here, and it’s a serious problem.”

Staff were aware that some people experience poor call bells response times. They felt this was due to the way call bells were used by some people rather than a lack of staff. We sampled call bell records for 5 people between 10 August and 9 September 2024. There was a total of 2,505 calls with individual usage ranging from 603 calls to 192 calls. Staff told us call bells had been discussed in team meetings and records confirmed this. The manager had implemented a system to triage those requiring priority and monthly call bell audits monitored call bell times. We reviewed the audits. They were not robust to effectively provide a route cause analysis or address the excessive response times still experienced by some. Following the assessment the provider sent us an action plan to show how they would improve people’s call bell experiences.

We observed calls bells being answered within 5 minutes on both assessment days. We observed some people used their calls bells more frequently than others. We observed ancillary staff and managers answering call bells during busy periods and aiding where the persons need did not involve personal care.

Staff felt supported by managers and senior leaders. They told us it was a good place to work with good support systems. A staff member said, “They are always concerned about our health.” And “I feel good, I can always speak to [manager name], there is an open door, and I can always talk to them.” Another staff said, “There are policies about wellbeing, you can always go and see the manager. I can always whistle-blow to a nurse or line manager, and they are there to help you. And that is anonymous.”

Processes were in place to support staff. The providers grievance procedure enabled staff to raise concerns formally and appropriately. Staff knew about this policy and felt confident to use it. There was a supervision policy which centred on open dialog between the staff member and their supervisor. Supervision also offered the opportunity for personal development and learning. The provider had recently implemented a staff recognition program to reward staff performance and encourage personal growth and development.