Sobell Lodge - Care Home Physical Disabilities

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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People and their relatives generally spoke positively about the caring approach of the staff team. A person told us, “I get on well with the girls. They are lovely.” A relative said, “They greet me well and everyone seems really happy and look well presented. The staff are lovely, and the manager is amazing.” Another relative commented, “She always looks nice and clean.”

We saw some positive practice. People were appropriately dressed and staff, although busy, stopped to listen and respond to people’s questions or requests. Staff knocked on people’s doors before entering their rooms, and we observed that conversations about people were held behind closed doors to maintain confidentiality.

However, one person told us that staff often ignored them and did not always show understanding when they needed some attention and care. They recounted being told, “You are lucky to be here. You won’t get anyone to help you if you keep moaning about staff.” This demonstrated a lack of empathy and respect and indicated that not all staff upheld the values of kindness and compassion.

We reviewed 2 incidents where staff removed people’s call bells because they were repeatedly calling for assistance. Although the incidents were addressed, they raised concerns about whether staff were consistently acting with compassion and maintaining a caring approach.

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.

Staff worked with people and those important to them to understand what mattered most in their day‑to‑day lives. People’s rooms were personalised and adapted to suit their needs, style, interests, disabilities, and preferences. Regular staff were knowledgeable about each person’s preferences, routines, culture, background, religion, and sexuality.

People were supported to attend places of worship and to continue with routines and relationships that were important to them. A staff member told us, “For example, we have 1 individual who likes a specific morning routine and is particular about their look. We support them to dress up and apply beauty products as they wish.”

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 supported to maintain and develop their independence wherever possible. Staff understood the importance of promoting autonomy and encouraged individuals to use their existing strengths and abilities in their day‑to‑day lives. For example, some individuals took on ambassador roles within the home based on their interests and passions. One person championed nutrition and healthy eating, routinely checking that meals were varied, healthy, and met people’s dietary needs. Another person acted as a representative for activities, sharing feedback and views from other residents.

People were supported to take part in household chores and the running of the home if they wished to. A person had taken on the responsibility for nighttime checks, including monitoring security and turning off the lights.

We saw examples of people using adapted wheelchairs that enabled them to move around the home freely without relying on staff support. This promoted independence and allowed people to make their own choices about where they wished to spend their time. Similarly, some people used adapted cutlery, which supported them to eat independently and reduced the need for staff involvement at mealtimes.

The environment was also designed to enhance independence. For example, sensors were fitted to people’s bedroom doors to allow them to enter their rooms without assistance. This simple adaptation helped people maintain control over their personal space and supported privacy, dignity and freedom of movement.

People told us they had choice and control over how they spent their day and how they wished their care to be delivered. Staff respected these choices and adjusted their approach accordingly. Staff were able to describe how they encouraged independence, and we observed interactions that demonstrated a focus on empowering people rather than doing tasks for them unnecessarily.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told us that staff did not always respond quickly when they used their call bells. Several people reported that waiting times could be long, which caused frustration and, at times, discomfort. The call bell analysis showed answer times varied. In the mornings, response times could take up to 10 minutes or more. People also reported not always being informed in advance when they had appointments or activities and this caused them stress and frustration. Staff acknowledged that although they tried to stop and check on people where possible, this was not always achievable due to staffing pressures and competing demands. As a result, staff were not always able to spend uninterrupted time listening to people to fully understand what they needed at that moment.

We observed that when staff were able to intervene, they provided people with items that gave comfort, such as blankets or personal belongings, and offered quick reassurance to reduce anxiety. However, these positive interactions were not consistent across the service, and people did not always receive timely support that reflected their immediate needs or preferences. For example, a person told us that staff did not always understand them and did not take the time to listen before dismissing them. They said staff would sometimes tell them they would find someone else who could understand them, but this did not always happen, and this caused them frustration.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they did not feel adequately supported in their roles and that the provider had not ensured their wellbeing was prioritised. Several staff described working under significant pressure, with limited opportunities to take proper breaks during their shifts. A staff member told us, “I have not had proper breaks. The workload is very heavy and intense, so we hardly have any proper breaks.” This suggested staffing arrangements and workloads were not managed in a way that protected staff welfare or allowed them sufficient time to rest.

Staff also reported that high use of agency workers placed additional strain on the permanent team. A staff member said, “We use a lot of agency staff in this home. It affects us because some of them need support to do the job and support the residents properly.” This meant permanent staff were often required to guide agency workers while also completing their own tasks, reducing their capacity to provide consistent, person‑centred care.

These issues contributed to staff feeling rushed, overwhelmed, and unable to give people the time and attention needed to fully understand and meet their needs. The lack of effective support for staff limited their ability to deliver high‑quality, person‑centred care and had a direct impact on people’s experiences.

However, the provider had some resources available to support staff wellbeing. Staff had access to free counselling and occupational health services provided by the organisation to help promote and support their wellbeing.