Leighton House Retirement Home Limited

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 as good.
This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.
 

This service scored 70 (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. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

There was a culture of kindness in the home and a family feel. Staff treated people with consideration, and it was clear they knew the people they cared for well. During lunch time we observed staff speaking pleasantly with people and supporting them as necessary.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. One person said, “The staff treat me with dignity, and I feel comfortable with them”. Relatives shared this feeling saying, "I think the staff know each resident well and are kind and helpful with everyone”.
 

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 observed staff engaging with people about matters which interested them. Staff, particularly the seniors, were very knowledgeable about people’s pasts and their families. Care plans also contained information about people’s preferences and histories. However, this information and knowledge was not used to plan activities or to tailor care and support. For example, people’s bedroom doors were not personalised. This was fed back to staff and the registered manager who informed us this was now in the process of being completed.
Information in the care plans was not always followed, which meant people did not always receive care and support in line with their preferences and needs.
 

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were offered choices, and where appropriate, staff supported them to understand their options and make informed decisions. For example, during lunchtime people were offered choices of food and drinks.

People and their families reported being able to make decisions and having choices. One person told us, “I can also make decisions about what I do every day in every respect. They don't mind me staying in my room because it's what I prefer to do.’”
 

The provider 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.

Staffing levels were appropriate for the needs of the people living in the home. Staff appeared alert to people’s needs and had good knowledge of each person and what support they needed. During lunchtime we observed staff supporting people in a friendly and relaxed manner. One person we spoke to told us the staff came quickly if they used their call bell.
 

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff received appropriate training and said they felt supported at work. The registered manager had an open-door policy and staff confirmed they were happy with their rotas and changes to shifts were accommodated when needed.

Staff received regular supervisions and were encouraged to develop in their roles and gain qualifications.