House of the Flame Lily

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 55 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion or respect their privacy and dignity.

We saw staff walk into people’s bedroom, where the bedroom doors were propped open, without gaining their consent. The way staff acted in the supported living scheme demonstrated they did not fully understand the model they were promoting. One staff member also referred to a person who used the services as ‘this one’ instead of their name. This meant people’s privacy and dignity was not always respected by the staff supporting them.

However, people and relatives were happy with the staff that supported them. One relative told us, “They are good, the carers and yes, they are nice.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s individual needs and preferences.

People’s individual needs and risks were not always considered. For example, a blanket approach was taken with regards to the storage of people’s medicines. This is not in line with the Reach Standards. Another person had commenced a low sugar/weight losing diet and there was no evidence to show they had been involved with this decision, which meant the provider had not considered their individual needs.

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.

People felt they could make day-to-day choices, including what they could wear and staff confirmed to us people were involved with these decisions. It was unclear how people were involved with more complex decisions about their care, including when a person was on a diet and when people’s bedroom doors were propped open when they were not in their rooms. We also found there was a communal menu for people, there was no evidence to show how this had been decided and that people were involved with these decisions.

Effective systems were not in place to ensure the provider consistently understood and responded to people’s needs.

As described in the safe and effective parts of the assessment, people’s assessed needs were not always met. We saw people’s individual support hours were not always planned for and therefore there was no evidence to show it was always provided. The provider sent us an overview of people’s individual hours after the inspection, however it did not demonstrate what we saw on inspection of provide any further clarity to us.

However, relatives felt people’s needs were responded to. They told us they had the opportunity to be part of reviews. The records we reviewed did not always demonstrate how people were involved with this process.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver care.

Leaders told us about their workforce and how they considered their wellbeing. This included operating an open-door policy and ensuring they were available for staff when needed. Staff we spoke with during the inspection felt supported by the management team.