The Laurels

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 the same. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff received training in dignity and respect.Records showed that people’s privacy was respected and upheld. Where individual staff had not always worked in accordance with service values, disciplinary procedures had been undertaken to protect people. One person told us, “I love it here, [registered manager] is my second mum.” When we spoke with staff the language they used when speaking about the people they support,was always respectful and caring. One staff member said, “I feel very privileged to be working at The Laurels and to be making a difference to people’s lives like every member of the team does.” Another said, “We are always pushing to be proactive and innovative in our approach to think of ways that our [residents] can feel they are living a life that is fulfilling and provides a person-centred approach for the individual’s needs.” 

There were new staff working in the service,however,the core staff team knew people well and their day to day preferences were respected .A health professional told us, “I would say what works well at [The Laurels] is the staff team care deeply for their residents and this shines through. There is a core staff team who have worked there for many years and the staff turnover seems minimal.” A relative told us, “The staff here are fantastic, they know [my relative] well and they do a great job.[My relative] likes the staff.”

The provider did not always make sure people’s care, support and treatment met their individual needs. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities,or aspirations. Further work was needed to ensure personalised records were consistently maintained. This included care plans and daily notes, to ensure they fully reflected people’s individual needs and preferences, and the choices people made independently, or where needed, in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff made sure that people received compassionate support and took the time to get to know them. The service provided sufficient time for staff to develop trusting relationships with people, their families, friends and other carers. Our discussions with new staff confirmed this. One staff member said, “I’m being given the time to get to know people and read their care plans. You’re not allocated to work with someone until you are comfortable.”

People’s bedrooms were decorated according to their preferences and were person centred. People had opportunities to enable them to practice their religion, including visits to the home by representatives of the church. People’s communication needs were documented, however, the level of detail varied with some being very descriptive, and others very basic. Speech and language therapists were involved in supporting progression with a communication system one person used, and staff would be trained to use this to enhance the person’s ability to communicate. Staff generally knew people well and understood their preferences.

In practice staff did provide choice to people and supported them to make decisions. However, the recording of this varied in quality. Whilst some staff documented exactly how they promoted people’s independence with tasks such as washing and dressing or preparing a meal, others documented very limited information about supporting people to do things for themselves to enhance people’s daily living skills. People’s social needs were understood by staff supporting them, however, activity planners/social needs aspects of the care plan were not always reviewed to ensure they remained relevant. One staff member told us, “I feel that the residents do get to enjoy meaningful activities both in the home and community. I think we're at a point at the moment where we can focus on improving this.”  People were supported to maintain and develop their relationships with those close to them, their social networks and community. People had free access to their family, friends and community to promote and support their independence, health and well being. One relative told us, “I can visit day or night, I just turn up, never any problems with this.”

The provider 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 knew people well as many had worked in the service for a number of years. New staff confirmed they had time to get to know people before supporting them on their own. One relative told us,“There’s a couple of staff [my relative] favours, they’ve been their one-to-one permanent staff for a long time.” Another said, “The staff are mostly consistent. There are a few new staff starting which worried me at first, but they seem to be getting on okay.”

Staff recognised different ways in which each individual communicated discomfort or distress, including both verbal and non-verbal cues. They escalated concerns if they thought this may indicate a deterioration in the health and well being of people.Some improvement was needed in relation to how people communicated pain, for example, implementing explicit pain assessment protocols given those people with limited communication. Staff responded quickly to signs that people may be experiencing sensory overload. There was a sensory room people could use to have some space outside of the service (this was located a few steps away from the main building).

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

We received feedback from 7 staff working in the service, which included both new and long-standing staff. Staff said that earlier in the year things were more difficult due to staffing issues, but said things had improved. The majority of staff gave positive feedback. One staff member told us, “I have been working in the care industry for many years and from all the places I've been so far, in this care home I feel most valued, and I think my skills are appreciated, also the team I work with is great.” Another said, “I’m very happy in my role and I feel genuinely valued. The support I’ve received has always been greatly appreciated, especially when I needed it most. I’ve never had any issues that weren’t handled promptly, and the on-call management team has consistently been reliable.” A third staff member told us, “I had [health issue] but I was fully supported, including in the amount of hours I worked.”

The registered manager told us there was an employee of the month scheme, where staff received a voucher in recognition of their work, or where they have gone the extra mile for the people they supported.