Lombard House

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service 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.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment, or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning, risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and we respect their privacy and dignity. We treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

3. We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful, and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support, and advice at the time they needed it. Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment, or condition.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

We spoke to 4 patients at the service. Patients told us staff treated them well and were kind, they told us staff are good and provide a happy and supportive environment.

Staff understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social, and religious needs. Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory, or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

Patients told us they were happy to raise concerns with staff, felt safe and staff knew them well.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. Confidential records were held on staff computers that were password protected.

We treat people as individuals and make sure their care, support and treatment meets their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

3. We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

The service made adjustments for disabled patients. Patients had mobility aids including frames and stand aids to help with personal care and maintaining independence.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. In the lounge patients could access easy read and accessible information for their individual needs.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies, likes and dislikes and intolerances. Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. Staff supported patients to visit church although 1 carer told us there was not always a member of staff to support with this visit.

We promote people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment. and wellbeing.

3. We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing.

There were 2 flats which housed 2 patients. These were for more independent living. Patients planned, shopped for, and cooked their own meals, cleaned their own rooms, communal lounge, and kitchen with support from staff. Patients in the main house were encouraged and supported to develop skills to live an independent life. There was a house rota for cleaning and staff supported individuals to gain volunteering and work opportunities in the community. Staff supported patients to assist with preparing and cooking meals. Patients told us they are involved in deciding what they want to do and where they want to go. Care plans demonstrated that patients participated in their care planning; they were written in the patients’ voice and in a clear, easy to understand way.

We listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress.

3. We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and care planned for these accordingly. In care plans we saw falls assessments had been completed for patients requiring these.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. Care plans demonstrated that as patients care needs changed, care plans were updated. For example, a patient who returned from hospital with a pressure sore was provided with a pressure mattress and specialist cushions for chairs that they used in the lounge and dining area.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. Patients had Positive Behaviour Support plans (PBS) to apply least restrictive techniques.

We care about and promote the wellbeing of our staff, and we support and enable them to always deliver person centred care.

3. We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. Staff told us they received peer supervision as well as formal supervision which they found helpful. Staff told us they were well supported from managers, and it was a good organisation to work for.

The service’s staff sickness and absence were similar to the average for other providers. The provider recognised staff success within the service – for example, through staff awards.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.