Laurel Court (Didsbury)

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. 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.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and well being.

People shared that staff consistently encouraged their independence and respected their personal choices. One person remarked, “They (staff) support me to do as little or as much as I can when helping me to dress.” Throughout our observations, staff regularly offered choices, whether it was about meals and drinks, how people wanted to spend their day, or which activities they wished to join. While many appreciated this, several noted that the range of activities felt limited.

People expressed a clear understanding of their rights and said they felt confident speaking up if they ever believed those rights or choices were being compromised.

Family and friends were warmly welcomed into the home, and it was clear that staff and relatives worked together in the best interests of the people living there, fostering a sense of trust and shared care.

People and their relatives played an active role in making decisions about health and wellbeing, and staff worked closely with them to ensure care reflected their needs. However, this involvement wasn’t always clearly documented during care plan reviews, which made it harder to see how their input shaped ongoing support.

Staff said, “We look at people’s care plans, and if we notice a change in their needs compared to this, we make the necessary referrals to physios etc. If the physio’s then make recommendations, we update care plans accordingly. A couple of months ago, a person who used to mobilise independently with a walking aid, then deteriorated. We referred them to a physio who suggested hoists, and we have now implemented this. We can also tell the GP who comes on ward rounds, weekly, if we need it more urgently.”

We observed staff and people living at the home sharing jokes and engaging in conversations on a variety of subjects. People told us that staff felt like family, and they valued the positive relationships they had developed.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.