Ryland View Care Home

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.

This service scored 70 (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.

Staff working at the service were kind, caring and treated people with dignity and respect.

During our visit we observed some personalised and friendly interactions between staff and people living at the service. Staff appeared comfortable, and people were supported with their daily routines. For example, we observed staff interacting with a service user in a relaxed and natural way, getting down to their level and giving the person time and support to allow that person to make their own decisions. A staff member told us, “When we are doing our care, we have conversations with residents and listen to music with them.”

People and their families described the carers as caring but busy, “Staff take their time when cleaning, I can't rush so I tell them not to rush.” This demonstrated that the provider promoted kindness, compassion and dignity in everyday practice, supported by monitoring, and input from the people using the service.

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.

The provider made sure that people were treated as individuals and that their protected characteristics were recognised and respected.

Staff had completed training in diversity, equality and human rights. Staff we spoke with understood how people’s identity and experiences shaped their needs and how to adapt support accordingly. A staff member told us “Family tell us too, don’t touch their bible and has to shower every day.” Another staff member told us “[person] likes to shower in the morning and only has care provided by female staff only, we also offer support to pray and read the Quran”.

The provider had systems in place to identify potential triggers for people and how to respond to them should they become emotionally distressed.

This demonstrated that the provider recognised and respected individuality, promoted equality and diversity, and ensured that people’s protected characteristics were taken into account in their daily support.

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

The provider made sure people were supported to have choice, independence and control in their lives. Care plans and daily records showed people were encouraged to take part in activities such as playing board games and creative activities where it was safe to do so.

People living at the service described how they were supported to communicate and make choices. One person told us, “I can choose what to eat, but I like my own food. I mainly have pasties. I choose what time to get up and go to sleep I will ring when I need support. I can choose what to wear they will pass them from the wardrobe.” Another person told us, “I choose what I want to eat or wear.” This demonstrated people were supported to make informed choices, develop independence, and retain control over their daily lives with the right balance of encouragement and safeguarding.

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.

We observed staff working with people, and when people needed support, their needs were mostly met within a short timeframe. People’s care plans guided staff on how they should support people who may become distressed. Most staff were familiar with individuals’ positive behaviour support plans and used these to anticipate people’s needs, supporting them to refocus on something positive before they become further distressed.

The service had systems in place to monitor incidents of distress for people and were continually reviewed to identify any patterns of behaviour that may be causing people to become upset. People received support 24 hours a day and there were always staff available to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were agreed for everyone based on their individual care plans to ensure there were enough staff available to meet immediate needs.

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.

Staff told us that they did not always feel supported and shared mixed feedback. One staff member stated, “Sometimes there is low morale, there have been some divides. Certain staff members have been clickily.” Another commented, “Since the new manager has come, he talks to us nice. But when the top people come in, they don’t acknowledge us and don’t say good morning.”

Additionally, staff were not aware of any organisational wellbeing resources in place to support their wellbeing. However, the provider had systems in place to support staff, including regular supervision sessions that allowed staff to check in with leaders and discuss both work and personal circumstances. Leaders demonstrated an understanding of staff needs, but visibility and communication from senior leadership remain areas for improvement.

These challenges were compounded by cultural divides between new and historical staff, with some staff resistance to changes. To address this, small but consistent changes have been introduced through company policy, ensuring alignment with service standards. Transparency meetings were held in September to explain the current status of the service and the need for collective support. While these meetings were well received by some staff, others continued to express dissatisfaction. Staff groups have been mixed to reduce any perceived cliques and improve collaboration.

Leaders also told us that managers have been encouraged to recognise positive actions and provide constructive feedback when improvements were needed, framing resistance as an opportunity for growth.