Lavender Fields

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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. During the assessment we observed warm and positive interactions between staff and people using the service. When people were sitting down, we saw staff crouching down to speak with them at eye level. People looked clean, well dressed and cared for. Staff spoke about people respectfully and demonstrated a good understanding of their individual personalities and preferences. People appeared relaxed and comfortable in the presence of staff and there was a calm and pleasant atmosphere throughout the service. People and relatives gave positive feedback regarding the caring nature of staff and described them as approachable, considerate and supportive. Comments included, “I am washed thoroughly and they’re gentle, in fact they help me more”, It’s a good home, everybody’s so kind” and “The individual staff make the place. They’re lovely.”

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 understood people as individuals and there was clear evidence care planning now reflected people’s personal histories, interests, relationships, preferences and life experiences. People’s cultural backgrounds, important relationships and individual wishes were documented within care records. Care plans demonstrated a much stronger understanding of who people were as individuals than had been found at the previous assessment. People told us staff knew them well and relatives were happy with the staff understanding of their loved one. A relative told us, “Oh, yes. They know all his little foibles.”

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 now supported to maintain and improve their independence and encouraged to have choice and control over their daily lives. Care records generally promoted people's ability to make decisions on a daily basis about their routines, personal care, meals, activities and relationships. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of supporting people with choices, including the activities they wished to join in with or routines such as when they got up in the morning or went to bed at night. We saw people being supported to maintain their independence such as walking with support without being rushed. Staff recognised people's rights to make decisions for themselves and understood the importance of promoting independence wherever it was safe to do so. Relatives told us, “Golly, yes. They don’t rush him. His mobility has got worse and I’m amazed how patient they are with him, knowing how busy they are. He walked from the dining room to the lounge the other day and it took him 20 minutes”, “(Relative) is definitely quite independent and she’s allowed to be independent. She does what she wants”, “(Relative) doesn’t go to all (activities) but does a lot. They do exercise, cards, gardening and entertainers come in” and “Activities are so much better, they are growing vegetables. They are being taken out to a garden centre and go to a café.”

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 responded appropriately to people's day-to-day needs and demonstrated awareness of what was important to them. We saw staff supporting people patiently and adapting their approach according to individual circumstances and preferences. A person was falling asleep in their chair after lunch. Different staff approached them at regular intervals using different tactics to suggest they go have a lie down where they may be more comfortable. Staff were kind and patient, accepting the person clearly wished to stay where they were. Staff respected this while at the same time ensuring their safety and comfort. Staff told us this was a regular occurrence and something the person liked to do. Staff knew the person well and could assess the situation as normal and the person’s choice and knew how long their nap would last. Care records included information to help staff recognise discomfort, anxiety, distress or changing needs and described how people preferred to be supported. Incident records demonstrated staff responded promptly when people required assistance following accidents, falls or changes in health. High-risk needs, such as choking risks, mobility concerns and health conditions, were highlighted and monitored to help ensure people received support when needed.
We observed call bells were answered quickly by staff. People were generally satisfied with the response from staff when they needed assistance.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff wellbeing had improved since the previous assessment, and staff were better supported with clear and consistent management and leadership. Staff described greater visibility and support from leaders and spoke positively about the current management team. Staff told us they felt listened to and supported and had access to guidance and advice when required. The introduction of a revised management structure and dedicated unit managers on each floor had provided greater support and oversight. A staff member said, “The unit managers are amazing, having them takes the pressure off.” Staff reported improvements in morale and generally described more positive working relationships. Increased stability in staffing and reduced reliance on agency workers had also contributed to improving staff morale. Whilst staff recognised improvement, they also expressed some challenges remained, particularly relating to sickness absence and staffing pressures at times. The overall feedback reflected a workforce that felt more valued and supported which enabled a more consistent approach to providing person-centred care.