Lynden Hill Clinic

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations and other visitors with kindness and respect. Staff communicated with people and their visitors appropriately, in a way they can understand.Throughout our visit, we observed kind and friendly interactions between the staff and people. Staff were polite and caring while completing various activities with people. People said, “All the staff, including the carers, cleaners and kitchen staff are very good. They are very, very good. They know how I like things done” and “So far, I’ve been very impressed. [Staff] know how I like things done. They listen to me.”People’s privacy and dignity was respected. When required, staff supported people by closing the doors to give them privacy. There were signs put up as and when needed on the bedroom doors noting not to disturb people. People told us staff treated them well and were never rushed.We also observed staff treated each other respectfully and supported each other to carry out various tasks. Staff were helpful in answering our queries and the team supported and looked after each other.

The provider did not always ensure people would be treated as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.The provider did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Care plans did not contain detailed information about people’s needs and preferences. For example, information relating to people’s medical, social history, communication needs and any requirements were not always detailed within their plans of care. This meant staff did not have accurate information to ensure people’s individual needs were met at all times. Staff did not always receive support or further training to ensure they were able to support people and their diverse needs effectively.

The staff promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People were encouraged and supported to be independent where possible. Staff were helping people with making choices, working together and involving them in day to day tasks. People said, “It is rehabilitation care, so you are in full control…you have to do your physios.You can ask questions when you want to. [Staff] assume a form of independence” and “I feel supported in reaching my goals at the end of my time here.” The registered manager added, “People choose things they want; if something is unsafe, we would advise them and about the risks.” Another person said, “I am being encouraged to be independent, but I am trying to do it quicker than they want me to. They said it’s just going to take time.”People were able to have visitors according to their wishes, and there were no restrictions place. People and relatives had different areas to use in the service for privacy if they wished to do so.

The provider and the registered manager did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always anticipate people’s needs so they could respond and act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. This did not always ensure people’s needs, views, wishes and comfort were a priority. For example, staff found a person had an injury, however, the record was unclear how this was managed to support the person, and to address the injury. Another person complained about some pain in their feet and not making any progress. They asked the registered manager to be informed about it. However, it was not recorded clearly if this request was actioned and if any support was provided to the person.Staff were not always alert to people’s needs and did not always take time to observe, communicate and engage people in discussions about their immediate needs. Staff did not always find out how to respond in the most appropriate way to respect people’s wishes. When people were involved in incidents or accidents, staff were not offered time to reflect and debrief on what went well, and then learn what could potentially help improve things.The registered manager said, “Staff will inform the manager and get on to the appropriate person, like GP, 999 or a private consultant. We would respond to any changes to people’s health and wellbeing.” However, the registered manager did not have an effective system to ensure staff were able to quickly recognise when people needed urgent help or support and use appropriate tools and technology to assist further.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. We received mixed feedback from staff about their support at the service.Some staff noted they were happy with the support from the registered manager and other staff told us they supported each other better but did not think the registered manager listened to them.The registered manager told us how they supported staff. However, they did not have a process in place to promote the wellbeing of their staff, that would support and enable them to help perform and deliver person-centred care. Most staff told us they were supported if required and they had different ways to reach out to the management team. However, staff did not have access to personalised support that recognised the diversity of a workforce. Staff did not always feel valued by their leaders and their colleagues. From staff feedback received, the staff team did not always have a sense of belonging and the ability to contribute to decision making.The registered manager did not ensure systems were in place to support staff such as having regular staff meetings and supervisions as part of effective practice at the service.