Lotus 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 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 did not always treat people with kindness or respect their dignity.
We observed times when staff did not communicate with people respectfully for example, a staff member was heard saying “Good girl,” to someone when they had listened to them and another member of staff telling someone, “Wipe your mouth, leave your drink there, take your bag down.”

Some daily notes also included language about people in a way that reduced their dignity, for example, “[Person] was praised for behaving well” and “[Person was] being demanding and emotional.”

Following this feedback the service immediately addressed this with the relevant staff.

However, we generally found the atmosphere friendly and welcoming, and it was clear staff and people living at the service had positive relationships.
We observed staff treating people with empathy, compassion and showing respect for their privacy. People appeared relaxed and happy around staff, one person told us when talking about their keyworker “[member of staff] is just a kind person.”
One relative told us, “The staff, every one of them you couldn’t meet nicer people.”
Another relative told us, “It’s a beautiful home, the best [person’s] ever been in, and the nicest people [person’s] ever met, so yes, it is nice.”
 

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, people’s care plans contained details about their preferences in relation to clothing, food and drink, hobbies and music. People happily shared their folders with information about their goals and dreams and photos of excursions they had chosen to include.
Most of the staff and people living at the service had been there for many years and knew each other well and had really positive relationships. People told us about their specific cultural interests and traditions that were important for their sense of identity and belonging.
People, relatives and staff told us about all the activities people did and enjoyed for example, shopping, dancing, bowling, eating out and seeing friends and family. One relative told us, “[Person] does a lot of shopping because they like shopping and has a lot of outfits.”
People were empowered to enjoy relationships. Specific, clear assessments were in place for people to remain safe whilst consenting to a sexual relationship.
However, for one person very few activities were recorded in their daily records as being offered or engaged in. Following our feedback the service added an additional section to the electronic care planning system, so carers had to provide more person-centred information and summarise the shift.
 

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.
People could contact and see their family, friends and advocates whenever they liked with no restrictions.
Care plans included personal preferences and how people were empowered to maintain their independence for example, choosing their own meals and cooking them.
Daily records evidenced that people made independent choices and were supported to undertake their preferred activities and eat their favourite foods including cultural favourites. Independence was promoted with tasks including personal care, cooking and domestic duties.
Staff talked to each person about the care and support the person wanted and offered people choices in all aspects of their lives.
One staff member told us, “People have a good quality of life, we support them to be independent.”
 

Daily records did not always evidence that staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. For example, daily records stated that someone had vomited but no further information was provided as to the cause or follow up actions taken including monitoring or promoting hydration. Another entry stated someone was agitated and unsettled but the only response recorded by staff was that medicine was administered.
However, people and relatives told us staff were responsive to people’s needs. One relative told us, “I think yes, they are very responsive to anything [person] might need, or they [person] would tell me.”
Another relative told us, “They’d recognise any change in mood, because [person] has good enough relationships with them to identify if something isn’t right.”
The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. During our visit one person indicated to staff they would like support with putting their coat on. Staff immediately supported them and asked if they would like to go for a walk. Staff then asked if they would like to go before or after lunch.
 

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.
Staff told us they enjoyed their work and felt valued and appreciated. Staff were offered flexibility of shifts to support their family and education commitments.
One staff member told us, “Here we support each other, work well as a team. It impacts the service user if we did not, we communicate very well, and this can empower people.”