Letheringsett Hall

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

This service scored 60 (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. We observed staff to be caring towards residents. One staff member told us, “It's important that we treat our residents as we would our own family as for them this is their home and we do our best to make it feel like this for them.” We had mixed feedback from people living at the service. One person said, “Sometimes I have heard some of the younger staff snap at people if the resident has been awkward. Normally the staff are very patient. If a resident needs help with eating their meals the staff will stand or sit with them to help them.” Another person said, “I get on really well with the staff. They are always kind to me. If I want anything they will always get it for me.”

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. Staff could not always rely on the information in people’s care plans, as these did not consistently provide an accurate reflection of their needs. People were encouraged to personalise their rooms with their own possessions. However, during our observations, we saw that people’s doors lacked personalisation and consisted solely of a door number.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. One person told us, “When I came here, we talked about my likes and dislikes. They soon understood that I can look after myself, so they just let me get on with things. They don’t force me to anything I don’t want to.” A relative said, “There is a lot of activities available. In the afternoon there is always something going on. In the last few months there has been a massive change in [family member]. [Family member] didn’t used to talk much, now [family member] does and its natural.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Records showed that some reviews took place, however these were generic and would state ‘reviewed, no changes.’ People told us they were not always involved in the review of their care plans. One person said, “I am not aware of any sort of plan or record.” Another said, "We did a care plan when I came here but nothing since.” We gained feedback from relatives regarding their involvement with the care planning of their relative. One relative said, “Yes, every year we have a review. We all have an input including my [family member], we are happy with things.”

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. Rotas showed that staff had, at times, completed a day shift followed directly by a waking night shift. This created a risk of staff exhaustion, which could impact their ability to provide safe and effective support to residents.

However, feedback from staff was positive and expressed their enjoyment of working at the service. One person said, “I am very well supported in my role.”