Leiston Old Abbey Residential Home

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 40 (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, or respect their privacy and dignity.

We received positive feedback from people and relatives about the staff and how they were caring and compassionate. A person said, “Lovely staff.” Another said, “[Staff] are kind.” A relative told us, “All staff are very friendly and caring and respectful of any specialneeds [family member] may have at times.” Another relative said, “I have seen every member of staff treat all with absolute kindness.” Several relatives commented on the kindness and compassion shown by a specific staff member, who they felt went the extra mile to make their family member’s feel cared for. This was confirmed by people using the service.

During our visits we saw some very caring staff interactions, where staff spoke with people in a respectful way.

However, despite the feedback we had received and our observations, we found people were not always being provided with a caring service where their dignity was respected. For example, a person’s bedroom had a hairbrush which was matted with hair. Despite there being a room in the service where continence pads were stored, a person’s bedroom had a box of pads against the wall, which was not dignified.

A person told us they did not always receive their clothing back when it had been laundered. This was also confirmed by a relative, “Laundry is not distributed correctly, clothes go missing even though they were labelled.” The minutes from a resident meeting in November 2025 showed people had reported missing laundry, despite this it was still happening. A staff member said they had tidied people’s wardrobes and drawers, “Not nice shoving clothing in drawers, families buy things, sometimes jumpers are ruined all put in machine together.” Another staff member told us they had found male’s clothing in female’s drawers.

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s care plans did include information about their background, such as their previous jobs, family and interests. However, there was little information about how their interests could be continued in the service. There was no information about their aspirations and strengths, and no information about their hopes for the future.

Records did not demonstrate enough respect was shown when recording to recognise people as individuals. A person’s care plan stated they were female, when they were male. A person’s daily notes referred to them several times as the incorrect gender and a male’s daily notes referred to them being supported to change at night into their nightdress. The registered manager confirmed this person did not wear a nightdress to bed.

There was no information recorded in care plans about how people were involved in their care planning and how this was used to shape the care they received. A relative said, “We don’t actually get consulted about [family member’s] needs but if any problems l feel the home would tell me. I have occasionally popped into the office to enquire about my [family member] and they are happy to tell me.” We received varied feedback from relatives regarding if they felt they were updated and consulted about their family member and their care and wellbeing.

People told us there were no restrictions on their family and friends visiting, this was confirmed by relatives.

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

A person told us they could not have a bath when they wanted one, and it was dependent on the staffing. They wanted more baths than they were supported with. Their care plan showed they preferred a bath, which was confirmed by the person who said they did not like to shower. However, their daily notes for February 2026, showed they were provided with 1 bath and 1 shower, despite them telling us they did not like a shower.

A staff member said, “All have showers some have every other day in their care plan, sometimes showers staggered times after tea, some like it shower and get in night clothes, lot love a shower.” However, daily records did not evidence all people were provided with the opportunity to have a shower or bath. For example, a person’s daily notes for 17 days in March 2026 showed they did not have a bath or shower or were offered one. The registered manager had reviewed the daily notes in January 2026 and identified people were not being offered showers and baths, despite this the issue persisted.

Night staff meeting minutes April 2025 showed staff were advised it was not practical or safe to provide people with showers during the night shifts. This demonstrated people’s choices could not be respected due to the staffing levels.

A staff member told us how they respected people’s choices, for example, “I pop head in if they are sleeping I leave them, sometimes all want to get up at the same time, I sit people up and give breakfast while wating, no one is neglected, usually happy if have their breakfast and a drink.”

People told us they had a choice of what to eat and mealtimes. Without exception, we received positive feedback about the food provided. One person said, “The food is excellent, the variety is wonderful.”

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 received mixed views about if staff responded to their needs when they requested assistance. Two people told us they had to wait for their call bells to be answered, and this was not always done promptly, for example they said they had to wait for half an hour and 45 minutes at night. The registered manager told us they were aware sometimes people did have to wait. There were no systems in place to monitor call bell response times. Another person told us they had to wait, “No more than a couple of minutes,” for their call bell to be responded to.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

The registered manager told us how they provided support to staff. This included advising how to access other agencies, and amending the rota if staff were facing issues, for example with childcare.

The registered manager told us they thanked staff when needed and had tried to introduce carer of the month, but staff found this patronising. Carer of the month was where an individual staff member it recognised for positive outcomes.

We found staff were not always supported to provide person centred care, this was because training was not being kept up to date and staff meetings were not regularly held. Staff told us they had not had a supervision or staff meeting this year. The registered manager told us it was difficult to get staff together for a whole staff meeting and was considering smaller groups to ensure staff could attend.