Tony Long 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

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 remained good.

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

This service scored 85 (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.

One relative told us staff ‘absolutely’ treated people and visitors with dignity and respect. Another relative told us, “[Person] feels that they are listened to. They have a say and are treated with a lot of respect and dignity.” Throughout our inspection, we observed a strong, culture of kindness and compassion which was consistently embedded in practice. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of people’s individual emotional needs and responded in a sensitive and proactive way.

We saw multiple examples where staff anticipated changes in people’s emotional state and provided timely reassurance and support. These interactions were warm, respectful, and unhurried, creating an environment where people felt comfortable, valued, and safe. As a result, people appeared relaxed and confident to express their wishes and raise any concerns without hesitation.

One professional working with the service told us, “You can clearly see the bonds between people and staff.” They described an interaction where a person said they were ‘tired’; the staff member responded compassionately, asking about their sleep the previous night. The staff member continued the conversation in a calm and reassuring manner, which helped the person feel understood and settled enough to choose to rest in their room.

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

People’s bedrooms had their personal belongings and rooms were decorated to their preferences. People told us about their favourite things and what they liked to do, and we saw this being encouraged by staff during our inspection. Where people enjoyed supporting with food preparations, we observed this happening. People were supported to access community events of their choice. One relative commented, “I think first of all staff know [Person] and know what they like. They make the most of the things [Person] can do, like going to watch the football live and on the telly and going to the pub to have a meal.”

People’s care plans had detailed information about their likes, dislikes and social and religious preferences.

A professional told us, “I hear staff asking what an individual would like to do for the day, what they would like to eat, are they feeling okay, or do they have any pain.”

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.

We saw outstanding evidence of staff championing a person’s right to independence, choice, and control following a prolonged hospital stay. The person had lived at the service for many years and consistently expressed a strong wish to return to the home they felt safe living in, with the people that mattered to them. Although their mobility needs had significantly changed, staff remained committed to ensuring the person’s voice was at the centre of all decision-making. Through proactive engagement with relatives and effective collaboration with professionals, staff advocated the person’s preferences and explored creative solutions to overcome potential barriers. As a result, appropriate support and adaptations were put in place, enabling the person to successfully return to the place they called home.

Relatives told us people could get up and go to bed at times they wanted. Where people preferred to stay in their room during the day this was promoted but with regular checks in place, if people consented to this. People and relatives were involved in the care planning at the service which helped them feel in control.

We observed staff promoting people’s independence. For example, one staff asked a person if they had finished their lunch and if they wanted them to take their plate away. The person said they would do it and walked to kitchen with their plate. We saw worktops in the kitchen area were remote controlled which enabled staff to adjust the height. They could be lowered for people to have better access to work tops to help with food preparation.

People who were non-verbal had detailed communication plans in place which highlighted the techniques needed to be used by staff to enable them to have active choice. We saw staff demonstrating this during the inspection.

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 told us staff came when they required or requested support. We observed staff knew people well and responded to people’s needs in a timely way. There were adequate staffing levels to meet people’s needs and people had access to call bells in their private bathrooms and in their bedrooms if they needed any support.

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

The provider had several initiatives available to support staff well-being. These included access to a well-being hub, GP consultations and counselling. There was also a money back voucher scheme for staff to access additional financial benefits. We saw evidence of flexible working being applied where needed.

Staff told us they enjoyed working for the service, had regular support and supervisions and opportunities to speak with the registered manager. One regular agency worker told us, “Staff are friendly and interactive, there is no disparity between managers, permanent staff and agency staff.” Staff also described how the registered manager helped cover shifts when needed, which made them even more integrated within the team.