United Response - 66 & 66a Lemsford Road

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 were not always supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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.

People were supported by staff who spoke fondly about the people they supported. We observed some interactions with people where you could see staff and people had built a positive relationship.

We observed some interactions where people and staff showed compassion for each other. However, we did see some relationships where staff did not always consider people’s individual preferences and desires.

People were not always treated as individuals. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. While some people had opportunities to engage in activities of their choosing, such as visiting the pub or going to the library, others did not have the same level of personalised support.

There were examples where people's preferences were not respected. One person had requested bright coloured curtains and access to their music player, but these had not been provided due to concerns about parasites, without clear evidence of efforts to find alternative solutions. Bedrooms lacked personalisation, and some people had personal items, such as photographs, that were not displayed. This limited people's ability to express their identity and feel at home in their environment.

We observed that some people had developed meaningful relationships with those they lived with, which contributed positively to their emotional wellbeing. However, not everyone shared common interests, and some individuals appeared less connected with others in the home and as such the provider needed to consider the compatibility of some people living together. A relative shared, “I wish there was a person they could relate to. I don’t know if they have any friends.”

People maintained relationships with those who were important to them. One person told us, “I like living with [person] sometimes, something its annoying. I ask them to stop, the staff help me.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were not always supported to have full choice and control of their daily lives. Daily records and observations showed limited evidence of staff encouraging individuals to carry out tasks for themselves. In some cases, support was overly directive, rather than enabling. However, we did observe one occasion where a person was actively involved in a household task, demonstrating that opportunities for independence were possible when appropriately supported

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.

We observed people communicating verbally and through body language to express what they wanted to do. In some circumstances staff reacted positively and immediately, however, there were examples where staff did not truly listen to what the person was trying to communicate. For example, one person was known to use images to aid communication, but there was no evidence that these were being used in practice. Another individual used Makaton to communicate, yet staff were not fully equipped or trained to engage with them effectively. This limited people's ability to express themselves and make choices about their care and daily lives.

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

Staff shared they felt supported by the new management and that they valued the staff. While overall wellbeing was described as good, recent changes to the management team had been challenging, with staff noting that each manager worked differently. Despite this, staff reported feeling more able to approach the current manager and recognised positive changes taking place. One staff member said, “I really feel valued, based on my work experience.” However, staff supervision was not being delivered consistently. This lack of regular supervision could limit opportunities for staff to reflect on their practice, receive support, and contribute to service improvement