Leiston Old Abbey Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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

This service scored 57 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans were in parts generic and not kept up to date to ensure staff had the current guidance to meet people’s needs. There was conflicting information in care plans and no evidence to show how people had contributed to planning their care. A staff member told us the service operated resident of the day, however, we did not see reference to this or people’s comments in the care plans.

Daily notes were poor and sometimes only referred to food and drink and personal care, with some instances where personal care was not always recorded and missed meals.

Daily notes had very little information to show any social engagement or activities. We saw some staff recorded where they had spoken with people, but this was not consistent, with people going for several days with no interactions, including people who preferred to stay in their bedrooms and people who were in communal areas.

There was no dedicated staff to provide social activities and no programme for activities in place. During our visits, we did not see any social activity taking place. Staff told us they did not always have time to provide people with social stimulation and activities. A staff member said, “Some people will quite often go out with family relatives,but in the home, they don't do much occupy them.” Another staff member said, “Not [an activities] coordinator, have entertainment come in, [registered manager] got buttons and stuff sewed onto card, [staff member] will do bingo Tuesday afternoon with prizes and a quiz, not every day activities but some going on.”

People told us they had some days when they enjoyed activities, but this was not often, which led to boredom.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People’s care records included information about their diverse needs, but clear guidance was not always provided to staff in how to meet these diverse needs. This was particularly important due to the use of agency staff working in the service who did not know people as well as the permanent staff.

Where it was recorded in daily notes that people had seen a health care professional and guidance provided, this was not included in the care plan to ensure they received a consistent service which met their needs.

We saw in daily notes the care plan was not always being followed, for example a person’s care plan stated staff should ensure the person’s clothing was laundered to ensure they had access to clean clothing. One day in their daily notes it stated they did not have a clean top to change into, there was no follow up information, later it also stated they had not clean top and the staff member supported to put on the top they had been wearing prior to receiving personal care.

Despite noting there was no evidence of ongoing social engagement within the service. We did receive some feedback which showed some people were supported to access the community. A person told us, “In summer we went on a bike trip they arranged… We've had some nice trips out they arranged a bus for us.” A relative said, “The gardener has even given my [family member] little jobs to help as soon as [they[ knew [family member] loved and misses [their] large garden.” Another relative said, “[Family member] is taken out regularly.”

There were gaps in staff training relating to people’s diverse needs, for example, training in equality and diversity, mental health awareness and supporting individuals with a learning disability.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s care plans included information about how they communicated and guidance in place for staff in how to effectively communicate with people.

The provider and registered manager told us, where required, documents could be provided in accessible formats.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People told us they knew who to go to if they had any complaints and felt these would be listened to. A person told us how they had been provided with an alternative call bell system when they had raised a concern. Records showed where complaints had been received and concluded.

Satisfaction surveys were undertaken, however, they lacked analysis to identify potential trends and to demonstrate actions taken.

Meetings attended by people who used the service were held, however, these were not regular to gain ongoing feedback from people. For example, records showed these were held in June and November 2025. There had been none in 2026. Where people had raised in the meeting in November 2025 about missing laundry, we received feedback during our inspection from people and relatives that this issue remained, therefore, systems were not effective enough to demonstrate people’s comments were used to drive improvement.

People’s care records did not show they were involved in decisions about their care or were empowered to make suggestions of how the service could improve.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were supported to access other services, including healthcare, when needed. However, this was not always incorporated into people’s care plans. The systems in place were not robust enough to ensure access to other services was effective or to always identify changes in people’s needs, where they may require additional support. This included the lack of observation and documentation about people’s wellbeing and presentation.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People’s records did not demonstrate people always received care which was tailored to their individual needs and preferences. This included people’s diverse needs, how they affected them and the service they received. People were not always being routinely asked for their views of the service they received and any changes they required. People told us they felt they were treated equally and fairly in the service. One person said, “We are treated fairly.”

The registered manager told us of examples of how they had challenged other services, for example, when people did not have access to their finances to improve outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Despite people’s care plans not always evidencing the care people required and preferred and how they were consulted about their care. The sections in the care plans relating to people’s wishes of, for example, where they wanted to be cared for if they became unwell and end of life decisions, were documented.