Valleyview

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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion, and staff consistently respected their privacy and dignity. Staff demonstrated professionalism and mutual respect when working alongside colleagues from other organisations.

People had positive and trusting relationships with staff, who were attentive to their emotional and physical wellbeing. Individuals were addressed by their preferred names, and staff took time to understand and respond to people’s preferences. Relatives confirmed the caring nature of the team. One relative told us, “My relative seems very happy and the staff seem to really care about them, and that means a lot that I know they are safe.”

Another relative described a meaningful interaction involving their family member, explaining that a carer had spent time talking with them and was able to gain sustained eye contact—an unusual and significant moment for the individual. The relative said the carer told them, “The hairs on their arm stood up and they could have cried.” They added, “I know what they meant and I was so pleased to hear what they said. Only a fabulous carer would understand!” This demonstrated the depth of empathy and connection staff sought to build with the people they supported.
 

The provider treated people as individuals and ensured their care, support and treatment reflected their needs and preferences. Staff considered each person’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture, unique background and protected characteristics.
People’s individuality was respected, and staff made meaningful efforts to accommodate personal preferences and communication styles. Individuals were encouraged to take part in activities of their choice, including trips into the local community such as visits to eateries and other establishments. One relative told us, “The staff understand the social activities that my relative enjoys and go out of their way to meet them.”

People were supported to personalise their bedrooms to reflect their tastes and interests. They were enabled to make everyday choices about meals, clothing and activities, and encouraged to maintain independence wherever possible. Staff did not wear uniforms to promote a homely, relaxed and non institutional environment.
 

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 understand their rights and be involved in the development of their own care. Representatives involved in people’s care were documented appropriately. Support plans clearly identified individuals’ preferences, goals and aspirations, and these were integrated into their day‑to‑day lives.
 

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and took prompt action to reduce any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff had built strong, trusting relationships with people and developed a detailed understanding of their communication needs. An inclusive communication plan set out each person’s receptive and expressive communication, helping staff recognise preferred routines, cues and approaches. Staff also demonstrated a clear understanding of people’s anxieties and how best to support them to manage these.

Relatives told us staff acted quickly whenever a person showed signs of discomfort or concern, contacting GPs and other relevant healthcare professionals without delay. The service used the Distress and Discomfort Assessment Tool (DisDAT) to identify distress cues in people with severely limited communication. Staff worked effectively with external agencies, sharing communication and care passports to ensure continuity of care and a consistent understanding of each person’s needs.
 

The provider actively promoted staff wellbeing and created an environment that enabled staff to consistently deliver person‑centred care. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and felt they were treated fairly, with regular opportunities to share their views and contribute to service development. There was a positive workplace culture where mutual support was encouraged, and staff described feeling valued and included by the management team.

Shadowing opportunities ensured staff were well prepared and confident in meeting each person’s needs before providing care independently. Staff also reported being supported to achieve a healthy work‑life balance, which contributed to high morale and a stable, motivated workforce.