Abbeyfield Lear 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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. For example, staff told us they respected people and put their needs first. We observed staff interacting with people in a kind and considerate way and people told us they were happy with the care provided. Comments from people included, "The carers work very hard. I have no complaints," “Staff are lovely” and "They really look after me."  Feedback from family members was positive. Their comments included, “The staff are kind and care,” “Staff are amazing" and “I only have positive things to say.”  

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. For example, most people’s care records included details of their background to help inform staff about their hobbies, interests and cultural preferences.
Staff spent time getting to know people and understand their individual preferences. Staff had worked at the service for many years, and their knowledge of people was reflected in how they spoke about them. Staff had a good understanding of people’s likes, dislikes and how to meet their individual needs. Feedback from family members was positive. Their comments included, “[Relative] wasn’t just a resident, he was (Name)” and “We are happy with the care [relative’s] receives and don't think there is anything I would say could be improved, which I am surprised about.”
 

The provider promoted people’s independence. People were supported to have choice and control over their care and make day to day decisions about all aspects of their lives. People were supported to make choices about their daily lives. For example, people chose when to get up, what to eat, and how they wanted to spend their time. Staff were respectful of these decisions and supported people to maintain control over their care and routines.
Visitors were welcomed, and people had opportunities to spend time with others in a relaxed and social environment. Family members told us their relative was supported to make their own decisions about their care, treatment, and wellbeing.
The activities coordinator received consistently high praise from both people and their family members. Comments from family members included “There is always lots of activities going on, they have a dedicated care activities coordinator who arranges all sorts of things. Kids visiting, animals, singers come in, it’s great, they also have regular events, celebrate birthdays etc,” “After 10 days, of moving in, [Relative] had a pamper session, and suddenly, [Relative] was settled” and “The activities staff member is just wonderful.” One person told us, “I take my dancing shoes down with me each day.”
 

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. For example, staff engaged respectfully and attentively with people.
The provider held a monthly forum where people were encouraged to share their views, raise concerns, and contribute to the running of the home. This provided an opportunity for open discussion, which helped people feel involved in decisions about their care. A person told us their bed was uncomfortable and asked us to raise this on their behalf.
 

The provider mostly cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. For example, the provider’s recruitment policy outlines that staff should complete health questionnaires as part of the onboarding process. However, we found that not all staff had completed these, which limited the provider’s ability to comprehensively assess and respond to individual health and wellbeing needs.
We were assured that staff were equipped with the appropriate skills and knowledge through a robust training programme, supplemented by a range of additional learning opportunities in relevant areas. Staff received regular supervision and were actively encouraged and supported by management to develop their skills. Opportunities for career progression were also available. Staff consistently reported feeling valued, respected, and well-supported in their roles.