Yearsley Villa

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 65 (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. We observed positive interactions between the provider and people. Feedback from people was positive, with one person describing the provider as “friendly and treat us like family,” demonstrating a caring culture within the service. The provider spoke about people in a respectful way and knew people well.

The provider did always treat people as individuals. However, records did not ensure care and support consistently reflected people’s needs and preferences. While positive relationships had developed which demonstrated a good understanding of people’s backgrounds, care records did not always reflect this knowledge or provide clear guidance on individual preferences. This created a risk that care may not always be delivered in a consistently personalised way. Although feedback from people indicated staff adapted support when needs changed, improvements were required to ensure people’s care plans fully captured their preferences, strengths, and aspirations to support truly individualised care.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, choice, and control in a consistent and evidenced way. Although people were supported to make day-to-day decisions, such as choosing when to get up or how to spend their time, records did not consistently demonstrate how staff supported people to achieve greater independence or meet personal goals. There was limited evidence of how people’s aspirations or outcomes relating to independence were identified, monitored, or achieved. This meant opportunities to maximise people’s independence and control over their lives may not always have been fully realised.

The provider always responded to people’s immediate needs and understood their views and wishes. Staff knew people well and were able to recognise changes in their condition or behaviour, enabling them to act quickly to reduce discomfort or distress. Observations and feedback confirmed staff were attentive and responsive in the moment. However, care records did not always clearly describe how people displayed anxiety or distress, which could impact consistency of support. Despite this, staff were able to explain how they recognised and responded to these needs, demonstrating a person-centred approach in practice.

The providers worked well together, supporting each other in their roles which enabled them to support people in a relaxed and flexible way.