3L Care Limited

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 75 (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. We observed staff interacting with people with warmth and dignity and in a respectful way. People told us they experienced staff as kind and compassionate. Comments included, “It is nice here, “The staff are lovely and affectionate,” and “I fell in love with the place.” Staff spoke positively about people, collectively referring to one person in a respectful and affectionate way, and described people and the home as “our lovely happy family.” People reported feeling understood and genuinely cared for. They told us their individual preferences were respected which helped to promote dignity and a sense of belonging. One person told us they appreciated the quieter environment, and staff considered their individual preferences. Another person said their relative was always welcomed by staff, so they felt a part of the family too. Some relatives shared past concerns about limited interaction. Most relatives we spoke with described recent improvements in the culture of care. 

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. Staff knew people well and supported them in ways that valued their individuality. People’s care plans showed a detailed understanding of their background, communication style and emotional triggers. Emotional and sensory support plans were very personalised, including people’s favourite music, sense of humour, family relationships, sensory preferences and what helped them to calm themselves. Staff knew people well and wrote about them with dignity and respect. People said they can personalise their bedrooms. One person told us, “My room is my own. I choose my own room décor.” Relatives reported improvements in how people’s personal preferences are recognised and supported. Some relatives said they would like to see more attention to people’s specific interests, such as activities people do to keep their minds active. Care records showed staff knew people well, but some parts needed clearer structure. For example, when someone refused oral care or was at risk of self-harm, the guidance needed more specific steps to follow, not just a personalised description. 

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. They promoted choice and independence. People’s strengths and skills were embraced to promote their confidence. People were supported to make informed decisions and lead their daily lives with autonomy. People told us they can make choices in their daily lives. One person said, “Staff are attentive and respect my choices.” Another person explained they are offered opportunities to go out but are “never forced to go.” People’s care plans included details about personal routines, such as preferred shower times and access to phones or other devices. The provider valued people’s sexuality and empowered them whilst promoting safety. Some relatives shared they did have concerns in the past about reduced independence and long periods of inactivity. They described to us how there was a stronger focus on independence now. 

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. Staff received thorough training to identify and respond to both physical and mental health needs. We observed staff responded quickly and considerately when people needed support. Staff were attentive and proactive in noticing subtle changes. For people who couldn’t speak, we saw staff interacting with them in caring and compassionate ways. Staff knew them well enough to understand what they needed and responded quickly, helping to reduce any discomfort or distress. Staff confirmed they had the time and support necessary to listen actively and respond to people’s needs effectively.  The provider responded when people’s circumstances changed. Care records were updated following any incidents or changes in need.  

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. They were focused on building a consistent team culture and supporting staff through ongoing change. They had introduced leadership development plans and strengthened human resources processes. Most staff described improved morale and stronger leadership under the current manager. One staff member said, “A year ago things were very different here, but things have changed and I love my job now.” Another commented, “They offer so much more training now.” Structured supervision took place regularly and competency assessments were completed to ensure staff remain skilled and confident in their roles. Most staff told us they now feel supported to learn from mistakes rather than blamed. Leadership was largely described as visible, approachable and proactive. Workforce stability appeared to be improving. However, a small number of staff told us they did not always feel supported through the recent changes that the current leadership team have made.