Littledale Hall Therapeutic Community

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service 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.

Staff treated clients with compassion and kindness. They respected clients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of clients and supported clients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved clients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with clients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing clients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. We observed positive interactions between staff and clients and clients spoke very highly of the service. Clients stated that staff were caring and respectful towards them. Clients described staff as “connected and compassionate” and that staff “really care”.

Staff supported clients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Clients praised the group work within the service and the sense of community that was created amongst staff and peers, which helped to promote a culture of openness and honesty.

Staff directed clients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. The service had links with external organisations and services within the local community that clients could access.

Clients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. Clients understood the expectations and restrictions of the service and felt that staff managed this in a fair manner.

Staff understood the individual needs of clients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards clients without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about clients.

We spoke with 2 former clients who gave positive feedback about the aftercare provided by the service. They praised the impact that the service had on them, with both describing that the service “had saved their lives”.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

The service made adjustments for disabled clients. The service had a bedroom which had been adapted to facilitate clients with mobility issues.

Staff ensured that clients could obtain information on the service and the care provided. The service provided clients with an information brochure and client handbook on admission. The information provided was in a form accessible to the client group.

Managers ensured that staff and clients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers. Managers gave examples of how the service had utilised interpreter services to support clients where required. Managers noted that any client communication needs would be considered as part of the assessment, as due to the service’s programme, clients would need to be able to engage in this effectively and so the service may not be the most appropriate for certain clients.

Clients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. The service confirmed that they would meet any specific dietary requirements on an individual client basis.

Staff ensured that clients had access to appropriate spiritual support. The service had links with local religious services and places of worship to ensure that clients could access appropriate spiritual support as needed.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff involved clients in their care plans. Clients felt involved in their care and that they had a voice within the service. Clients understood the requirements and expectations of the service and believed that staff managed this appropriately and fairly.

We spoke with 3 clients who had recently been admitted to the service who gave positive feedback about how they were welcomed and supported on their arrival. They felt this had helped them to be more open and comfortable with sharing their experiences.

Clients praised the group work they took part in within the service. Clients felt the service was meeting the expectations that they had before arriving.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, and care planned for these accordingly. Staff understood the risks associated with the service and how these should be managed. Clients had individual risk assessments which were up to date and included plans for an unexpected exit from treatment.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, clients. Staff could tell us about how incidents were managed and actions that had been taken to address any emerging or changing risks.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team.

The service had low levels of sickness. Managers described how staff would be supported if they had any health issues or issues that could affect their performance at work.

The provider offered reflective practice sessions for staff once a month.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how these aspirations could be supported. The appraisal form encouraged staff to consider their work over the previous 12 months, performance objectives they had for the next 12 months, along with any areas of personal and professional development they wished to achieve.