Select Lifestyles Regent 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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.

We saw staff walk into people’s homes without gaining their consent. On 1 of these occasions we saw this occurred when a person was in receipt of personal care. This meant people’s privacy and dignity was not always respected by the staff supporting them. Some staff referred to people who used the services as ‘residents’. This is not an appropriate way to refer to people who use supported living services. The people who use this service live in their own homes and are not ‘residents’.

However, people were happy with the staff that supported them. One relative told us, “I have no complaints with how staff are with my relation.” Another relative told us, “Staff are kind. They are very caring.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s individual needs and preferences.

People’s individual needs and risks were not always considered. For example, at 1 supported living site, a blanket approach was taken with regards to the storage of people’s medicines and monies. Records did not show that individuals had been consulted with about this to ensure this met their individual needs or preferences.

However, people and those important to them were involved with some aspects of their care. Care plans in place considered how people made day to day choices and how their independence could be promoted. Staff we spoke with were aware of these plans and told us how they encouraged people to remain independent. One staff member said, “We should know everything about our clients, what food they like what activities they enjoy, for example, if they like to go to church and all this is detailed in their care plan which we are given from the start. I have 2 clients who like to go to church, I ask which church and what time, and I will take them on a Sunday”.

The provider did not always ensure that people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Although we saw that people could make day to day choices it was unclear how they were involved with more important decisions in their lives. For example, where their medicines were stored, how their finances were managed and who provided their care.

We found in 1 of the supported locations we visited that some people’s front doors were left open. This was not something that was referenced in people’s care plans and we were unable to ascertain if this was people’s individual choice or if staff had made this decision.

However, relatives and people told us they could make choices. One relative said, “There are no bedtime restrictions. He has his own routines”. A staff member told us, “The care plan will identify people’s preference, religious needs etc and how to talk to residents”.

Effective systems were not in place to ensure the provider consistently understood and responded to people’s needs.

As described in the safe and effective parts of the assessment, people’s assessed needs were not always met. We saw that 1 to 1 support was not always provided as planned which meant staff were not always present to respond to people’s immediate needs.

However, relatives felt people’s needs were responded to. They told us they had the opportunity to be part of reviews.

The registered manager told us they held regular reviews of people’s care to ensure they had the most up to date information about people. We saw reviews of people’s care were taking place.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver care.

The registered manager told us about their workforce and how they considered their wellbeing. This including support lines that were available for staff.

Staff we spoke with felt supported by the management team.