Archived: Langley Oaks

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

This service was previously rated good. We rated this key question good. This meant people and their relatives felt they were well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

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.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring. A relative said, “They always seem to approach residents with gentleness and care. Everyone from the laundry workers, cleaners, cooks, and all the other staff are friendly and upbeat. That makes a huge difference.” Another relative said, “I think that the staff know mum well. They are great in every way possible. They interact well, my [relative] feels comfortable with them, and they laugh a lot there. I have had no complaints with the staff.”

We observed staff being kind and compassionate during our assessment. People were offered choices and seemed happy with the care provided. Staff told us they were respectful of people’s wishes and understood how to treat people with dignity. The provider supported staff with training and guidance, and expectations were outlined in the providers staff handbook and policies.

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

Some relatives felt the provider could be more inclusive in respect of people’s religious and dietary needs. For example, a relative told us, “The quantity and quality of food is good but it's not catering necessarily to diverse needs.” Another relative told us, “I will sometimes take [relative] out to church because the home doesn't support our religious needs, at least not that I’m aware of.’ Another relative explained, “There are people with mixed faiths here, but I don’t know which other faiths are supported in the same way as my [relative].”

The provider took account of people’s culture and unique backgrounds, and care records contained people’s social histories and preferences such as food likes and dislikes. A relative reported, “‘The staff take an interest in my [relative], they are all friendly and caring. The care home has involved me in finding out about her likes and dislikes”.

Staff and managers knew the residents well and used this knowledge to build relationships and treat people as individuals.

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 supported to have choice and control over their care and make day to day decisions. For example, people chose when to get up, when to sleep, what to eat and how they wanted to spend their time. People were encouraged to take part in activities, and were able to spend time with others. A relative explained “[relative] is joining in the activities there and doing different things that he's never done before, which is excellent.”

During our visit we observed staff offering encouragement to people, for example, the provider had introduced a hydration station to support people to access drinks independently. We observed staff supporting people to access the bathroom and maintain their independence.

Access to family, friends and visitors was welcomed and encouraged to be part of the home’s community. People’s relatives felt they were welcomed and encouraged to join in activities. A relative told us, “There was a summer barbecue in the home and my [relative] that day was the dancing queen. It made us all happy to see her having fun.”

Care records showed people were supported with equipment such as walking aids, and had access to a wide range of services, including opticians and dentists, for example, to maximise their independence.

The provider did not always listen to 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 relatives told us staff listened to and understood people’s needs. A relative explained, ‘The staff know my [relative] well. They're all familiar faces, and my (relative) knows them well too. This is very important, I feel. They leave [him/her] if [he/she] in a bad mood and then go back to do what was needed later.” Another relative told us, “This home suits my [relative]. It's clean and has a friendly staff team who cope with my [relative’s] mood swings and individual needs well.’

However, during our visit we saw several examples when people’s needs were not responded to quickly because care staff were busy supporting other people. These examples included people requiring support at mealtimes and one person who was becoming distressed as they were unable to navigate a floor spillage in a doorway. This was observed by a manager who stepped in to help. A relative told us “Many [people] are unable to do anything independently, so the staff are fully occupied being task-driven, doing things like taking them to the toilet and so on. The staff do try their best for them and are kind”.

The provider had shared information relating to people’s changes in needs through daily handovers and all staff and managers had access to this information. The managers told us were pro-actively assessing call bell response times to ensure staff responded in a timely way. Individual call bell risk assessments had recently been completed and updated. This helped managers and care staff to understand individual call methods and how to respond to them.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, but did not always support and enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

The infrequency of staff supervision was noted and discussed with the registered manager, and is previously referred to in this report. The registered manager told us she had developed a system to monitor this to ensure the frequency of staff supervision was improved and maintained. This also included ensuring each staff member had a named line manager to support care staff to develop a more person-centred care approach.

During the assessment the registered manager and deputy manager were on site to support staff; they monitored the standards of care within the service and worked with care staff to ensure a good standard. Managers told us they worked on site Monday to Friday and there was a manager on-call rota at evenings and weekends. The registered manager told us she would always call in when she was on-call to check in with staff. Staff were complimentary about the new registered manager and felt confident they would make the changes required. Staff told us how the culture in the service was more positive and staff motivation had improved as a result of feeling everyone was working together to improve the service.

We reviewed minutes of team and managers meetings, which were focused on improving care standards and listening to feedback from staff. The registered manager had recently introduced a staff reward and recognition scheme, where staff could nominate their colleagues for an award. Staff wellbeing and life balance was supported by a flexible approach to rota planning; managers told us they supported preferred working patters when possible.