Valerie Manor

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 Outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

People generally experienced care that was delivered with kindness, compassion and respect. Many people and relatives spoke positively about staff attitudes, describing them as friendly, polite and caring. One person told us, “The carers are good, friendly and polite and so responsive.” Observations during the inspection showed staff engaging warmly with people, spending time talking, using humour appropriately and responding patiently to people’s requests. Staff were seen knocking on bedroom doors before entering and taking steps to preserve people’s privacy during personal care.

Staff demonstrated compassion in how they supported people with complex needs. People told us staff attended promptly when they fell, supported them safely with mobility and ensured they were comfortable and reassured. Relatives highlighted examples where staff responded openly and honestly when things went wrong. One family member told us the manager was transparent and communicated well following an incident, which helped build trust and confidence in the care provided.

People were generally supported in ways that recognised their individual needs, preferences and circumstances. Care plans reflected people’s physical, emotional and mental health needs and were used to guide staff in providing personalised care. People and relatives told us that staff knew them well and understood what mattered to them. One person said, “The carers are good, friendly and polite and so responsive,” while a family member commented that staff were attentive and “nothing seems too much trouble.”

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual needs, particularly when providing support with mobility and manual handling. One professional said, “I assisted in the manual handling of a patient with a healthcare assistant who I found to be friendly and kind in her approach and knowing what the patient needed in order to be moved safely.” We observed staff supporting people in a safe and compassionate way, tailoring their approach to the person’s abilities and preferences. This demonstrated that staff had the knowledge and skills to treat people as individuals when delivering care.

People were supported to express their preferences and make choices about their daily lives where possible. Some people told us how they wished their care to be delivered. Staff sought consent and explained care where appropriate, supporting people to retain a sense of control. People’s cultural, religious and communication needs were considered, and aids were used to support people who experienced difficulties with verbal communication.

People’s independence, choice and control were promoted in some aspects of their care, but this was not consistently achieved for everyone. Staff encouraged people to do things for themselves where possible and supported people to retain mobility and independence using appropriate equipment. Some people told us they were able to make decisions about their daily routines, such as when to go to bed, and felt staff respected these choices. One person explained, “I decide when I go to bed… that’s important to me to have some control.”

However, people and relatives consistently told us that they felt opportunities to remain meaningfully occupied were limited. Many people commented on the lack of activities and social stimulation, particularly those who did not wish to leave their rooms or were less able to participate in group‑based activities. One person said, “They don’t do much, apart from the singers,” while another person said, “There aren’t any. I haven’t been out anywhere. A singer comes she’s very good and she involves people.” One relative commented, “It’s boring. How often do you want to listen to the same singer?” Another person explained that although they had interests, such as sewing, they needed encouragement and one‑to‑one support to re‑engage, which was not always available.

The service had activity planners in place, which showed a range of scheduled activities across including quizzes, musical performances, games, themed events, trips out and ‘free choice’ days. While this demonstrated an intention to provide varied opportunities, people told us these activities did not always meet their individual needs or preferences. Several people said they chose to stay in their rooms and felt there was limited direct engagement from staff for those who did not attend communal activities. One staff member acknowledged this, stating that people’s needs had become more complex and that there was a need for staff to spend time with people in their rooms, for example reading newspapers or talking through photographs. One staff member said, “We need more activities, and a coordinator. People have noticed where the dependency has gone up. We need people to go to the rooms and read newspapers and keep them up to date on the news. Or go through old photos and talk about them. We don’t have time to do it. We do what we can.”

We provided this feedback regarding engagement to the provider. Following the inspection, the provider informed us that they had recruited an Activities Coordinator to begin support with activities. The provider also said that programmes would include both group and one to one engagement for people and were looking to plan some external trips and community engagement.

People’s choice and control were also impacted by staffing pressures. People described staff as rushed, which sometimes affected how quickly staff could respond or how flexible they could be in supporting people’s preferences. Some people told us they waited too long for assistance with personal care or support to use the toilet, which affected their dignity and sense of control. Although people recognised staff were doing their best, these delays reduced people’s confidence in being able to make choices when they needed support to act on them.

People’s needs, views, wishes and comfort were a priority and staff anticipated these to avoid any preventable discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff used evidence-based tools to monitor people’s conditions to anticipate and determine if people required extra support. Staff recognised when additional professional support was needed for people. Appropriate escalation of incidents and timely referrals helped support people with immediate needs.

The wellbeing needs of staff were being met.

There were necessary resources and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks and rest areas. Staff had regular opportunities to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service or staff experiences. One staff member said, “We’ve done team building events a couple of times. Get togethers. They were supportive and understanding.”

Staff told us that the provider was flexible and understanding when flexible working was needed to accommodate personal commitments or events. One staff member said, “We are like a family here. We do welfare checks, for example, we supported staff who (lost a relative).”