78 Hoylake Crescent

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 service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

The last rating for this key question was 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.

We identified breaches of legal regulations relating to person-centred care.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff did not always ensure people were treated with respect. For example, we saw a member of staff dismissing a person’s questions by trying to change the subject. Another person was provided with a clothes protector whilst they were eating. However, this had an inappropriate slogan which belittled the person.

Nevertheless, people told us they had good relationships with staff and liked them. Their comments included, “They are a good bunch” and “Staff are nice.” We saw friendly interactions between staff and people using the service and. Staff were mostly kind and polite towards people. People were asked for preferences regarding the gender of their care workers. These were respected.

People were not always treated as individuals. The provider was not meeting the principles of Right support, right care, right culture because they had failed to develop personalised plans to help meet people’s needs. People were not always engaged in structured, planned meaningful activities.

Managers had developed care plans. These focussed on people’s mental and physical wellbeing but not always on skills development or future planning. Additionally, copies of care plans were not always available for staff to view. At the time of our visit, 2 people’s care documents were held at the organisation’s head office. The records available for staff to view did not have detailed information about people’s individual needs. Staff could not always describe people’s needs including the health conditions they had. People told us they did not always get individual support which met their needs.

However, people told us they were able to take part in some activities with each other, at the service, and supported by staff. For example, people were asked whether they wanted to participate in a board game. They told us they enjoyed these interactions. Some people told us they were able to go out on their own without staff support. For example, a person explained, “I like going out for a pint and watching the football.”

Staff did not always give people choices. People told us they did not have a choice about meals or how these were presented. A person commented, “Beggars can’t be choosers. The food is not always well cooked, and I do not like salad cream on my vegetables.” We saw staff put ketchup, brown sauce and salad cream over everyone’s food before serving this at both lunch and dinner time on the day of our visit. People told us this was always the case and was not their choice. People were not given the opportunity to serve themselves. A representative from the local authority who visited in August 2025, reported the same situation, with everyone provided with ketchup all over their food and no choice of meal. The local authority representative had also found planned menus were not followed.

People were not supported to develop independent skills or to do things for themselves. Staff and people using the service told us staff cooked meals, attended to people’s laundry and undertook the cleaning at the service. Whilst some people took part in a weekly cooking session, this involvement was limited. A person explained how they wanted to live independently. They said they were not being supported to develop skills to do this. People told us they enjoyed the weekly cooking sessions and would like more of these.

During our visit, a person requested a hot drink. They offered to help with this and tried to get involved. However, staff told them not to do this and made the drink for them instead.

Failure to support people to make choices, be independent and to do things for themselves was not consistent with the principles of Right support, right care, right culture. People were not given sufficiently intensive learning opportunities to develop skills. This meant the provider was failing to provide person-centred care.

Staff responded to people’s immediate needs. People told us staff were available when they needed assistance. On the day of our visit to the service, 1 person had a medical emergency. The staff were prompt to identify the person was unwell, sought medical advice and escorted the person to hospital for treatment. The provider had systems for the staff to contact other professionals when people had a crisis or needed additional support.

The provider supported staff wellbeing. Staff told us they felt well supported. They explained they could ask managers for information or support when needed. Staff told us they felt there was good teamwork, and they supported each other.