Lilleybrook 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; and involved as partners in their care.
 

This service scored 65 (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.

Whilst we shared some concerns from our observations with the manager, we mostly saw positive and respectful interactions between staff and people. People and relatives mostly spoke positively about the kindness and compassion shown by staff. One person told us, “Staff are very kind, sweet and knowledgeable.” A relative told us, “Staff are lovely and caring”.

People’s dignity and presentation were well maintained. People were observed to be clean, well dressed and appropriately groomed, and personal items such as glasses were clean.

We received mixed feedback about whether the provider consistently treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not consistently take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The registered manager had identified that all people’s care plans required review to ensure that included full information about their cultural needs and preferences. The review had started and they were working towards conclusion, to ensure everyone’s individual cultural needs would be clearly and consistently documented.

We received mixed feedback from relatives about whether they were happy with the care and believed staff knew their relative well. Some relatives told us they were not assured that staff understood their relatives likes and dislikes, whereas others spoke more positively. One relative said, “Staff have learnt over the years what my relative likes and dislikes.”

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

People told us staff listened to them and respected their choices. People were supported to lead the lives they wanted and their rooms were personalised and decorated in line with their choices. One person told us how they had discussed that they would like to redecorate their room as they wanted a change. They explained staff had been receptive to this and had provided samples so they could choose colours. At the time of our assessment everything was in place and the decoration was scheduled to go ahead.

We asked one person whether they were given choice and whether their choices were respected. They told us, “Yes I said I prefer female carers and they adhere to this.”
There were a variety of group and individual activities available for people. People told us they enjoyed the activities. One person said, “There is another activities coordinator who is new and…good at getting everyone up and out of their seats.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. However, staff had not always acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about whether staff were able to respond to people in a timely manner. Some people and relatives raised concerns that staff were not always available promptly when they needed them, whereas other people and relatives told us there were enough staff to responsively meet their needs. Our observations were mixed and we saw people receiving different experiences. On day one of our assessment, we saw that staff did not always act responsively to respond to people’s immediate needs and minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. We shared this with the registered manager who told us that staff had acted outside of their usual practice as they were being observed. In contrast, on day two of our assessment we saw that staff were attentive to people’s needs and minimised any discomfort and distress.

Handover meetings and ‘eleven at eleven’ meetings took place to share important information and respond to people’s immediate needs.

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

Staff retention was good and the staff we spoke to told us they felt valued and supported by the management team. One staff member said, “I am happy working here. Management are brilliant and really supportive.” Another staff member told us that they felt, “respected”. Staff told us the management team supported them with adjustments to their working pattern, for example due to caring commitments or health conditions.

Team meetings were held where staff were encouraged to share their views and contribute ideas. Staff told us they were asked for feedback on what worked well, what could be improved and how response times could be enhanced. This demonstrated a culture where staff input was valued and used to inform service development.