Limetrees

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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service that registered with us in 2023. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People were treated with kindness, compassion, and dignity, and this was consistently seen in the home. People and relatives spoke positively about staff’s approaches and attitudes, describing them as caring, friendly, and respectful. One person told us, “It’s everything I wanted it to be, staff are caring and kind.” One relative told us, “The care staff are very attentive, caring, and kind.”

We observed how staff approached people in a gentle and respectful way, offering reassurance and support when needed. Staff were also observed asking for permission before providing care and supporting people to maintain their dignity.

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

Care was not always personalised, and people were not always supported in a way that fully reflected their individual preferences and needs. At times, care appeared to be more task-focused, with limited evidence people’s choices were consistently promoted. For example, at mealtimes some people experienced limited choice, with one person stating, “We don’t get a choice, it’s just plonked in front of you.” Activities were not always tailored to individual abilities or interests, and opportunities to provide meaningful, personalised engagement were sometimes missed.

Records did not always clearly demonstrate how people’s preferences and personal histories were being used to shape care, which limited assurance care was consistently person-centred.

We saw positive examples where staff demonstrated a good understanding of individuals. One person told us, “The most important thing is staff knowing what you do and don’t like,” another person told us, “It’s like a home from home here.” Relatives we spoke with told us they had been involved in discussions about a relative’s care. One relative told us, “We discussed her diagnosis, medications, and diet in detail.”

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

Particularly at mealtimes and in how activities were delivered.

Care was at times task-focused, with opportunities missed to fully involve people in decisions about their day-to-day lives or support them to maintain independence. Activities were not always adapted to individual preferences, and some people appeared to have limited engagement.

People felt able to make choices and retain control. One relative told us, “They choose their bedtimes, what to eat and drink, and how to spend their day.” One person went on to tell us, “You can come and go as you please… I never feel like a prisoner.”

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.

People’s immediate needs were responded to, and many residents and relatives described staff as attentive and supportive in day-to-day care. One relative told us, “Staff are very attentive, caring, and kind.” One person told us, “They always come quickly, they’re usually totally on the ball,”

We observed examples of staff responding appropriately to people’s needs, offering reassurance, support, and practical assistance when required. Management were particularly effective in responding to situations promptly and ensuring people received the help they needed.

There were some occasions where responses were slower or less coordinated, particularly during busier periods. However, these were not reflective of the overall experience shared by most people and relatives.

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.

Workforce wellbeing and enablement were not always supported, with some staff describing pressures that impacted their ability to carry out their roles effectively. Staff feedback highlighted concerns around workload, staffing levels, and limited resources in some areas. One staff member told us, “Sometimes there’s such a lot to do… we don’t have enough people and hours.”

However, there were positive aspects within the staff team. Staff were observed working well together during our on-site visits and maintaining a caring and committed approach to supporting people. Relatives we gained feedback from, spoke positively about staff, describing them as “attentive, caring, and kind.”