Hyde Nursing Home

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 felt they were supported by kind and caring staff. Staff knew people well. However, there were shortfalls in staffing levels and a high use of agency which had impacted upon peoples continuity of care.

This service scored 35 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

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.

Staff understood the importance of consent and engaging with people at the point of care. Staff told us they were able to access care plans and had an understanding of people’s needs. However, care plans were not always up to date and were not always personalised to reflects people needs and preferences.

Processes for oversight were not used to ensure people and families were involved in making decision about their care or that care plans reflected people’s personalised needs to ensure care was delivered in line with these assessed needs and preferences.

We observed staff support people with kindness. Consent was asked of people before staff provided support, and staff were respectful and considered people's dignity when supporting them.

People told us that staff knew them well and they felt well treated by staff. Records and feedback did not evidence how people were involved in making decisions and choices around their care although people felt able to make decisions about their daily lives. People were supported to have visits from friends and family and limited things to do such as group activities were provided within the home.

People fed back that staff were responsive although some people noted there were times when they had to wait for assistance due to staffing availability. People felt that generally the permanent care staff were kind and knew how to support them but this was less evident in relation to the agency staff. People were not always clearly involved in developing their care plans and people needs, views and wishes were not always assessed or incorporated into their care plans.

During our site assessment staff responded to people kindly and in a timely way. We observed positive interactions between staff and people. We observed someone raising a concern about pain to a member of staff who promptly informed the nurse who then attended to the person.

Staff received training and support relevant to their roles. However, training records were not always accurate, competency assessments were not always completed, and care plans were not always sufficiently detailed to ensure staff could respond to people’s immediate need. Staff told us the recent increase in staffing levels had significantly improved their ability to respond to people’s immediate needs.

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.