Byron Lodge Care 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 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 65 (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. Staff were kind and caring in their interactions with people and they treated people with care and compassion. We observed people having manicures from members of staff and people were happy to see the activities co-ordinator when they came into the lounge areas. One person told us, “[Member of staff] upstairs is particularly nice. They are nice to everybody. [Member of staff] is a lovely lad.” Another person said, “[Members of staff] are all nice to me. You don’t feel left out. It is nice to have the company here. I am happy.” A relative told us, “Yes, [the staff] are very patient and caring. I don’t say when I am coming in and I have seen [the staff] chatting to [family member] and singing with them. They are really good. [Family member] has a temper. A member of staff came to see me, [they] were so lovely. The member of staff said ‘It’s not [Family member], it is their Dementia’. The members of staff are still lovely and it didn’t affect [Family member’s] care at all.”

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 individual needs were met and there was no evidence of institutional care or institutional practice. People made choices about where to spend their time. Some people chose to go back to bed after breakfast and some people chose to spend time in the lounge areas. A relative told us, “[Members of staff] explain what they are doing and sit and hold [family member’s] hand. They bob down and talk to them, rather than stand over them. It’s reassuring.”

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People were offered choices about food and drink throughout the day. At mealtimes people were offered choices of food and their choices were respected. We asked people about member of staff supported them retain their independence as possible: One person told us, “I can do a lot for myself and I like to. I can get up and have a shower every day on my own. [Members of staff] let me do what I like. They are here if I need them, I like having the company.” Another person said, “Yes, I am quite capable of looking after myself, [members of staff] know this. If I need anything I can talk to them.” People stated they were able to make their own choices. One person told us, “I can do a lot for myself. I can go to bed whenever I want to. I have a shower every day, I like that I do it myself. I can go and sit outside and smoke.” A relative said, “[Family member] doesn’t like to be on their own and I don’t like to think of them on their own. [Members of staff] always bring [family member] into the lounge which is very important to us, they are very good.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. During the site visit, we observed staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. However, feedback from people highlighted some instances where they had to wait for support and members of staff did not always respond quickly. One person told us, “Things haven’t got any better. I still have to wait up to an hour and a quarter for someone to come.” Another person said, “I am able to do a lot for myself, I haven’t had to ask for anything. They would help me, if I needed them to.” A relative told us, “[Family member] needs to have 2 people to move them because they have be hoisted. It can take 20 to 30 minutes sometimes for 2 of them to be around to help. I have not seen anyone who hasn’t been helped.” Another relative said, “I don’t think [family member] would know how at use [the call bell]. When I have used the bell, [members of staff] have come straight away.” Another relative told us, “I have seen [members of staff] going to other people when they have needed to. I don’t have any concerns, I think people are looked after well.”

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care. However, some members of staff told us they did not always feel supported by the management team. Daily meetings took place with members of staff and representatives from all the care and support teams. Members of staff had access to the online training system and policies and procedures including an employee handbook. The provider had carried out staff engagement meetings about changes and developments to the management team following the previous inspection. Changes, improvements and developments to support for members of staff and organisational culture in the care home needed to be sustained and embedded into practice.