Loyd 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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement.

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

This service scored 50 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives. One person told us, “Yes, staff are incredibly kind and patient.” Another said “I’ve got a lock on my room, and no-one will come in without knocking. They usually check on me about every hour.” Another person described an incident where a staff member unlocked and entered their bedroom when they weren’t present and then left the room unlocked. They reported the matter to the manager but voiced that this situation has not been resolved. Additionally, we observed on 4 occasions staff entering people's rooms without knocking or calling out.

We observed the atmosphere did not feel friendly or inviting on any of the days we visited, we discussed this with the management team.

We observed limited good interactions with most still feeling task orientated.

We also observed poor regard for people’s home environment, with continence products and clothing stored untidily. This was discussed with the management team during this assessment.

Some people could not tell us about their care, so we used Short Observational Framework for Inspections (SOFI) to see if they received good care. We observed one person not being interacted with throughout our visit and we discussed this with the management team.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We saw evidence of people's birthdays being celebrated.

Some people’s rooms were personalized; however, more work was required to ensure all rooms reflected people’s preferences and individuality. One person experienced a delay with the decorating of their room, and we were given conflicting reasons as to why. However, we were assured that it would be completed within the month.

There were no activity schedules displayed, and we saw no evidence of activities being offered. When this was discussed with the management team, we were told this was looked at but not implemented and they would look at this again. The management team told us people completed activities with the therapy team. We saw evidence of this and people attending the gym, however activities were not daily and not for all people. One relative told us,"They encourage (relative) to draw and be creative. (Relative) has lots of personal effects and photographs in their room and they encourage (relative) to talk about them and who we are".

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Not all people had access to a range of activities or access to the community. There was no activity coordinator in place. One person was told during their pre assessment that they would be able to go out daily, but this has not been the case. Staff confirmed this and told us with current staff levels it would not be possible.

People told us they were supported to have visitors and to supported to visit friends and family. However, one person told us, “They would like to be supported to visit their family member, but that staff have not spoken to them about planning a visit."

When asked about the delivery of activities in the home, one person said that staff “Sometimes run activities in the home – and were having a Halloween event here and elf day at Christmas. Some activities don’t interest me.” Another person didn’t think activities were ran in the home but felt that the staff were “always open to suggestions.”

Relatives told us, "“I don’t know, but I trust that they do. I know (relative) stills try to be as independent as they can.” Another told us, "What(relative) loves is to dance and(relative) doesn’t get to do it. (Relative) loves the video, Something Special, and I have bought videos and cassettes, also a DVD Player but (relative) never sees them as they don’t play them for them. The remote has been lost several times, and I have bought replacements, but nothing changes.’

Care plans generally lacked details of peoples likes, dislikes, independence levels and choices. However, some were reflective of people's sexual activity.

Care records did not consistently reflect that people have been given choices and did not evidence any activities This was discussed with the management team.

Condiments were in individual wrappers with no explanations as to why when we asked. This indicates people were not being supported to be as independent as possible.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We received mixed feedback about responsiveness. One relative told us," There is a(person) in a next room who falls out of bed, regularly my (relative) had to use their buzzer to call for help for, otherwise no staff are forth coming." Another said, "As far as I am aware the response times are as they should be. "However, we observed a person with their call bell out of reach. After we highlighted this, it was put back in place. The service did not have a system in place to monitor or record call bell response times. This was discussed with the management team who confirmed that monitoring would be implemented. We also observed one person has flash cards to support with communication, but they were not kept in the communal areas, therefore not easily accessible to staff. Management agreed these should be made readily available.

Staff members were able to demonstrate how they would communicate with someone who did not communicate verbally.

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 were told staff meeting frequency would be increased, staff told us they do try to hold them monthly. The minutes that we reviewed did not demonstrate that staff were encouraged to speak up. Some staff told us that when they had previously raised issues, nothing was done. Others said they had raised concerns with previous managers, and these were not handled well.

Most staff told us there were not enough staff, which impacted the time they spent with people. They felt at times this made them unable to do their job properly, that things were missing, and they felt they were just doing the basics. Some people were missing out on outings as a result.

We were told that previously senior staff were given one day a month as a protected shift; enabled them to catch up on tasks, but this had been stopped. The staff told us they do not always have enough time to complete everything.

The service had a speak up champion as well as a mental health first aider.