Archived: Lyme Regis Care Home with Nursing

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 service under a new legal entity. 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 50 (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.

The provider did not always understand the importance of ensuring that staff had the skills and time to recognise when and how to give people compassionate support when they needed it. As a result, staff did not always recognise when people needed personal support or if they did, staff did not always had time to give it themselves, or to ensure that someone else did. Relatives told us staff did not always have time sit and talk with people for a meaningful length of time. Comments included, “[My loved one] says staff are off a little bit, not so caring. Some don't make eye contact with [my loved one]. [My loved one] has cataracts, and [they] cannot see very well so [they] can’t recognise staff, and they should introduce themselves each time they come in the room.”

As a result, people received support that was not always respectful and consistently dignifying and compassionate. For example, during our site visit we found the window in the communal bathroom on the lower floor was left wide open and accessible form the car park via open door leading to the laundry and boiler rooms. The blind on the window was broken and wouldn’t close, which meant people’s privacy and dignity while using this bathroom was compromised.

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.

People’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs were not always documented or understood by all staff. Care plans did not include information about people’s strengths, abilities, personal goals and aspirations. Staff had limited access to information about people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs and on how to tailor people’s care and support accordingly. This meant people were supported to have their needs met by staff who lacked full understanding of the full context of their life experiences.

Staff knew people well and were polite and considerate when speaking to people. Staff recognised people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. Relatives felt their loved ones were treated as individuals. Comments included, “They treat my [loved one] as an individual and understand [their] ways,which is not easy as [my loved one] has dementia. My [loved one] has said on many occasions that the staff are lovely people” and “[My loved one] isn’t keen on having hair washed or cut and [their] wishes are respected. And a compromised agreed.”

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.

The provider had processes in place to promote people’s independence; however, they were inconsistent and not always effective. Staff told us they encouraged people to be independent and supported with tasks where needed to help maintain and improve independence. People were offered choice. For example, people were encouraged to personalise their bedrooms with items which meant something to them, making them individualised and identifiable. However, people’s individual needs and preferences were not always fully understood and not always reflected in their care, treatment and support. Care plans did not always contain detailed information about how they would like to be independent and what they could do themselves.

People were supported to maintain and develop their relationships with those close to them. Relatives told us people’s individual wishes and preferences were respected. Comments from included, “[My loved one] has an air mattress. They did get physio soon to visit [them] to see if they could get [my loved one] up but [my loved one] doesn't want to” and “[My loved one] never has a shower. That's [their] choice. [My loved one] is happy to stay in bed all day in the tiny little room and [they] just stare at the wall.”

We found the premises lacked dementia friendly signage and had few ‘landmarks’ to orient people in their surroundings. The provider did not follow best practice guidance to assess how each person living with dementia could orientate themselves in their surroundings. Despite providing care for a number of residents with diagnosis of dementia there was no evidence of adaptations to the environment made to make it more stimulating and appropriate. For example, there were no orienting items to help people orientate and navigate their surroundings. No signage or memory cabinets with significant personalised items were used to help people identify their bedrooms. Due to limited storage space in the building, communal bathrooms were used to store moving and handling equipment. The provider did not follow best practice guidance to remove clutter to make frequently used items easier to see and minimise trip hazards.

Professionals told us there was a room for improvement to support people’s choice and independence. Comments included, “Encouraging residents with mobility to explore the community and to mobilise more within the home would help maintain their physical abilities and autonomy.”

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.

People’s support plans did not always contain details of the different levels and triggers for people’s distress, and the action staff should take. Not all care plans under the ‘Emotional support’ section offered detailed person-centred guidance for staff on how to meet people’s emotional needs. For example, we reviewed care plans for 3 people admitted to the home on 1, 2 and 18 July 2025. None of the care plans had the section ‘Emotional Support’ completed. This meant staff did not always have information to identify when they needed to intervene to prevent or reduce the likelihood and impact of an episode of distress. Staff were not always able to anticipate people’s needs and recognise distress and discomfort at the earliest stage.

Relatives told us staff were not always readily available when people needed them at the time of distress. Comments included, “Generally the atmosphere is good. It can be fraught because of some of the residents’ behaviour. If it [escalates], staff try to diffuse it. It stresses my [loved one] and [they] can get frustrated sometimes when other residents get [agitated]. So, they now take [my loved one] back to [their] room in the afternoon if [they] want a bit of peace and quiet” and “My [loved one] says they take ages to come. Sometimes it's 3 or 5 minutes, but other times it's closer to 20 or 30 minutes.”

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 provider put systems in place to gather staff feedback and to monitor and support their well-being. Staff felt involved and safe to disclose information of concern. Ten staff members took part in the anonymous staff survey completed in September 2024 which confirmed staff felt supported and appreciated by the management. However, the provider did not actively promote the wellbeing of staff and always supported and enabled them to deliver person centred care. For example, staffing levels, particularly at night meant staff were constantly under pressure and had little time to spend with people beyond task focused care. Staff schedules did not always encourage or support staff to provide care and support in a compassionate and supportive way. When we visited there had been a shortage of staff in the kitchen and the activity coordinator had been asked to cover kitchen duties. This meant activities planned for the day were cancelled. One member of staff told us, “I have been asked to cook because they have not been able to get another chef. Only recently they have found one.”

Comments from people and relatives confirmed that staff did not always had time to sit and talk with people for a meaningful length of time. One relative told us, “There’s no housekeeping staff, which further takes care staff away from caring for [my loved one] and chaos in managing regular laundered clothing [being] returned correctly to their owner.”

We received overwhelmingly positive feedback from staff about the management of the service. Staff told us they noticed vast improvements since the manager was in post. However, not all staff felt positive about their experiences working at Lyme Regis Care Home with Nursing. Staff commented, “Our manager is exceptional. [They] lead by example, are approachable, and try [their] best to make the home a better place despite ongoing challenges. [Their] passion for quality care and doing the right thing is clear. The deputy is capable and supportive, but [they] are often stretched thin. Both are working in a tough environment and doing the best they can, but they would benefit from stronger teamwork and support from the wider team.”