Minstead 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

Systems to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to people, including risks associated with the environment and support planning were not robust and did not always demonstrate a caring approach. Staff had not always been provided with clear guidance on how to respectfully meet people's individual needs or maintain dignity. Staff did not always report incidents or safeguarding concerns in a consistent or timely manner, which meant people were not always cared for in safe way. The provider failed to ensure people were adequately protected from the risk of infections and had appropriate furnishings and equipment in a timely way. This did not always demonstrate a caring and supportive approach.

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.

Whilst all relatives told us they felt staff were caring towards loved ones. One relative raised concern about the lack of support with footcare and oral care but felt staff did their best for their loved one. And another relative told us, “We feel [Name] needs are being met but have concerns due to changes of staff and the impact this has had on them.” Whilst another relative told us how recent lack of communication in relation to concerns in the service had left them feeling anxious and that their trust and confidence in the provider had been broken. One person we spoke with told us about staff who were supporting them and that they were nice to them.

Staff told us about peoples support needs and how they worked with people to ensure they felt safe and cared for. One staff member told us, “I am proud of the achievements we have made and the positive impact on peoples independence and gaining confidence to access the community, which they didn’t do before.” The registered manager and other staff told us about the culture in the service and how the recent staff changes, although they have caused disruption to people not having familiar staff, people seem to be more relaxed and engaged. The provider told us they are committed to ensuring all people living at Minstead House are cared for in a safe, caring way by all staff and have taken lessons learnt from recent events.

Health professionals we spoke with felt staff were caring and overall and sought advice and guidance. However, 1 health professional felt that the timeframes in which recommendations were acted upon, needed to be improved.

We observed positive, kind and caring interactions by staff towards people using the service, responding to people's needs in calm and respectful way. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. During a period of observed practice, staff were patient when people carried out repeat requests or actions. This helped to alleviate any anxiety the person may have been experiencing. The registered manager was a strong presence, mentoring other staff on how to support people when they were becoming anxious. We observed staff replicating this afterwards.

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.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

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.