Lindsay 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 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 outstanding.

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

This service scored 90 (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 was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Through observations and feedback, we found that people, visitors, professionals and internal colleagues were consistently treated with kindness and respect. This was not just relevant to staff directly delivering care to people, this was throughout all levels of staff within the provider.

Staff told us that leaders had created and upheld a culture of kindness, and external professionals reflected the same.

One professional told us, “Staff are respectful, kind and gentle to individuals, afford them time [and] make them feel like they matter.” One staff member told us, “[Staff] are caring, respectful and genuinely committed to the people they support.”

One person using the service had tried many other services prior to the provider, but these had not worked for them. We asked them what they had found different about the provider, they told us, "They [staff] are some of the kindest people I've ever met", "I feel welcome and at home", and "I can really be myself here."

The provider treated people as individuals and was exceptional in how they made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s plans, assessments and other documentation reflected their differing interests, personalities and characteristics. This was also reflected in people’s day to day care. Staff and leaders had good knowledge about people’s individual preferences and consistently supported them to do things that were important to them.

For example, some people preferred to spend most of their time within the service, so the provider ensured they were able to access and do things that interested them, whilst others preferred to access the community on a regular basis so the provider supported them to do so in the safest way possible.

Where people wanted to maintain their hobbies or interests, but needed additional support to do so, this was provided. For example, one person had previously regularly attended music concerts, and when they expressed this wish again, the provider took steps to support them to do this, including scheduling staff to be on shift who had similar interests.

The provider was exceptional at promoting people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were actively encouraged and supported to be involved in the planning and delivery of their care. Alongside the provider supporting people to reach their goals and aspirations, they also ensured and promoted independence with day-to-day living. For example, people were supported to choose, prepare and cook their own meals. If people did not want to cook there were provisions in place for people to have meals prepared for them

Where people had chosen to have meals provided, they were still afforded choice in what they ate.

People were supported to maintain personal relationships. Where there were sensitivities, the provider was creative with how they supported people to maintain these relationships. For example, ensuring safe spaces for people in the home while also ensuring privacy, or supporting visits within the community

Where people were able to meet their own needs, they were supported to do so. For example, one person was approaching a change in medication for one of their conditions. The form of administration was one the provider felt the person may be able to complete on their own, therefore they were working with the relevant health professionals to introduce the medication, support the person to learn how to manage and self-administer with a view for them to manage this medication independently.

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 and leaders had good knowledge about people, and their communication needs which enabled them to identify when different, or additional support was required. The provider was quick to respond to providing additional support, either internally or externally by referring to or contacting external professionals.

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

Staff received regular supervisions, and they told us they felt supported. Staff also told us that in between scheduled supervisions, they were able to reach out for support and received this from leaders. There was a long-standing staff team, and opportunity to develop within the provider.

Staff told us that their workload was manageable, but at times, this could increase unexpectedly. They told us that in these situations, there was always a team effort, between them and leaders at varying levels to prioritise and continue to deliver the best care.

One external professional told us, “They [the provider] are enormously supportive of their staff, evidenced by how long some staff have worked there, coupled with feedback.”