Ambleside

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 did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion. We completed observations at the service over the two days of inspection and found concerns.

One person was distressed and was not effectively supported to reduce their anxiety. A care plan used a disrespectful description for the person. A memo was in place to guide staff how to support the person, however the language used was task orientated and not person-centred or individualised to meet people’s needs. One person was observed to be sat on their own and in silence for most of the day without any stimulation or activity.

However, one staff member was observed to be conspicuously outgoing and natural having a very cheery manner, taking an interest and being very interactive with people.

Feedback from professionals who visited the service was positive, they told us they were treated well during visits. Staff understood how to maintain confidentiality and respect people’s privacy.

Staff also told us they worked well together and treated each other and the people they supported with kindness and respect. Comments included, “Staff team are kind, they treat service users with dignity and respect, they listen to them, have a one-to-one conversation with them”, “People are spoken to politely, listened to, kept safe and supported in a caring respectful way.”

The provider developed individualised care plans which identified people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs. The provider had reviewed and updated care plans following this inspection. These gave good guidance to staff about the person’s personal preferences and how to support the person effectively.

People had access to call bells in their rooms. People had the opportunity to go out into their local communities and local groups visited the home such as school children and music groups. People told us they especially liked the visits from the children. The provider had a range of group and individual activities as well as specific one to one support.

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

We observed there was only enough seating for 10 people in the dining room and all food was seen to be served in one sitting. This meant not all people could sit at the table to eat. Four people were seen eating their meals in the conservatory on tables. The manager told us 4 people like to remain in the conservatory, and they were asked daily, but there was no record to support this, and we did not observe people being asked their preference.

One person told us they wanted to be more independent, but the environment limited their ability to do this.

However, the comments we received from staff demonstrated their understanding of promoting people’s independence. For example, “I support people to maintain their independence by encouraging them to do as much as they can for themselves, whether it’s body wash, dressing, eating, or moving around. I provide guidance, equipment, and emotional support, while respecting their choices and routines” and “If a resident can walk short distances with a walking frame, I encourage them to do so rather than transporting them in a wheelchair, while walking behind them to ensure their safety.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We observed a person who became distressed and was shouting whilst sitting in the conservatory with other people who expressed their dissatisfaction regarding the level of noise and distress. One staff member, sitting in the conservatory, did not move from their seat when a person became distressed. No attempt was made to distract or reassure the person to reduce their anxiety or distress. The staff member repeated the person’s name in an authoritarian voice to indicate for the person to stop shouting. This was in direct conflict with the person’s care plan which stated that a trigger for distress is, “feeling like I am not being listened to.”

Staff we spoke with told us they were well supported, and the provider promoted their well-being.

Comments included, “As a care professional, I am treated very well at work, and the service demonstrates that it values me through concrete actions related to support, development, and respect”, “The service values me by listening supporting giving and treating me with respect” and “I get complimented at work and get comments like ‘job well done’ after carrying out some tasks. Yes, I am treated well and valued at work.”