Ormsby Lodge

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. One staff member told us, “I always knock before going into someone’s bedroom and ask what they’d like me to do. If they’re getting dressed, I come back and make sure to close the curtains to protect their privacy.” A person using the service told us, “They know me well and I’m very happy. I feel safe. The managers are friendly and listen if something upsets me.”

Relatives spoke positively about the way staff interacted with people. One said, “Absolutely yes, staff treat everyone with kindness.” Another told us “Staff make sure [name] has their visit with us in private, which shows respect.”

During the inspection, we observed warm and respectful interactions between staff and people living at the service. Staff took time to listen, gave people choices, and responded with patience and encouragement. We saw people being greeted by name, supported at their own pace, and treated as individuals.

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 received care that reflected who they were and what mattered to them. For example, one person sometimes chose to follow a halal diet, and staff respected and supported this. Another person preferred to stay in and complete activities at home rather than go out.

A professional shared photos of staff supporting a person re-engaging with daily routines and the wider community, saying, “This is [name] taking part in everyday living skills and accessing the community—something that hadn’t been achieved for a while. With staff support, cooperation and perseverance, they’ve made a huge difference to [their] quality of life.”

A relative told us, “Yes, they accommodate [name] needs. They teach [them] how to do things and support [their] wishes.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We found some restrictions on people’s freedom and independence that had not been appropriately assessed. For example, locked cupboards and toiletries, and there was no clear evidence that these restrictions were in line with best interest decisions or least restrictive options. People had not been assessed to support them to manage their own medicines, where able. Although staff and people using the service described people’s personal goals, including planned holidays, care plans did not evidence these choices.

We observed staff promoting everyday choices. People were supported to choose their food, activities, and how they spent their time. Staff consulted with people about daily decisions.

These inconsistent practices meant people were not always fully empowered to make or act on decisions important to them.

The provider did not always listen to and understand 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.

Incident records did not consistently show that staff checked individual’s welfare after episodes of upset or harm and PRN protocols lacked clear guidance on how people express pain or discomfort. These gaps limited the services ability to provide immediate responses to emotional and physical needs.

Staff were attentive and responsive when people were visibly upset, taking prompt action to reduce distress. On-site observations showed staff understood individual’s behaviours and responded appropriately. The provider worked in close collaboration with an external Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) team, who commented: “The staff and management at Ormsby Lodge constantly seek the best way to support everyday living skills for the people they support, which has a significant impact on individuals’ quality of life.” However, not all staff had completed formal Positive Behaviour Support training.

There was sufficient staffing available both during the day and at night, with staff also having access to a 24-hour on-call system for additional support if required.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Some staff did not feel valued or supported, particularly following absence. There were also inconsistencies in the delivery of supervision, team meetings, and training. Staff told us they had not received regular one-to-one sessions or formal appraisals, and team meetings were infrequent. This meant opportunities for reflective practice, feedback, and structured development were limited.

Risk assessments were not completed for staff returning to work following health-related absences. As a result, potential necessary adjustments were not identified or implemented, exposing both staff and people using the service to unassessed and unmitigated risks.

Staff described relying on each other for support, which helped to maintain a positive team environment. One staff member said they felt safe when working alone due to trust in their colleagues and confidence in the team’s ability to respond to incidents calmly and appropriately. Another described the staff team as supportive and said they felt listened to by both colleagues and managers.

Most staff told us they felt supported by colleagues and management and described good communication across the team. One staff member felt less confident in the leadership and reported not feeling supported during a period of personal difficulty. This feedback was not reflective of the wider team experience but highlights the need for consistent wellbeing support across the workforce.