Lyles House

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

Staff and leaders treated people in a kind and caring way. People's life histories were recorded in great depth, and staff knew people well. People told us staff were friendly and treated them with respect. We observed interactions between staff and people to be mostly warm and positive. We observed one interaction at breakfast where a staff member served a person's food without acknowledging them. However, the manager took action to rectify this.

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.

Everyone we spoke with, including people and their relatives, told us staff were kind and caring. One person said ‘The staff are kind, there is no doubt about that’. We observed people to look relaxed and comfortable when talking with staff. This kind and caring atmosphere extended to people's relatives. One relative told us ‘I would recommend it – it is small, homely and very friendly.’

Staff practice was regularly observed by leaders to ensure staff worked in a way which promoted kindness and dignity. Constructive feedback was given to staff to promote development. When concerns had been raised, the service had robust processes in place to respond promptly. Appropriate action was taken where poor practice had been identified.

We spoke to a visiting GP, who said they found the service to be kind and caring. They spoke positively of their partnership working with the service.

We saw staff and leaders talk to people with kindness and compassion. Care was delivered in a dignified way, and people's personal information was stored securely. The manager told us they would comfortably challenge poor practice to protect people's dignity.

People experienced individualised care from staff who knew them well. Staff encouraged people to remain as independent as possible focusing on peoples strengths. Relatives of people living at Lyles House spoke highly of the care their family member received.

Staff and leaders, including the owner of the care home, had spent time getting to know people. Staff and leaders knew individual peoples life histories without needing to refer to records. This meant staff could have meaningful conversations with people easily.

We observed staff interacting with people in a personalised way. Staff and leaders knew people and their relatives well, and had spent time building strong relationships. The atmosphere was homely and welcoming. People's bedrooms were personalised and well maintained.

Processes were in place to ensure care records reflected people are individuals. Records had been regularly reviewed in conjunction with people and their relatives. Where people were unable to contribute to their care plan reviews, the service had worked with their family members to ensure they knew about the persons likes, dislikes and life history.

People told us their independence, choice and control was supported and respected. People confirmed there was an activity programme at the service, including external entertainers, exercise sessions and singing. When speaking about how the service encourages people's independence, a relative told us 'They do try hard with [relative], really hard, and they encourage [relative] out of their room'.

Staff knew people’s preferences and how they wished to be supported. Staff understood the importance of ensuring people were supported to maintain relationships that are important to them. Staff told us relatives often visited people living at the home, and the provider confirmed there were no restrictions around visiting.

We observed people to be invited to take part in activities, and their choice to participate or not was respected. People were able to spend their time where and how they wanted. We saw people being supported to mobilise with walking frames which promoted both their independence and safety.

Processes around record keeping were effective at identifying people's individual preferences. Staff were aware of people's strengths and abilities. This meant they could continue to encourage their independence. Resident and relative meetings were undertaken to encourage people to have their say on the activity programme on offer, however these would benefit from being more frequent.

People told us staff were attentive and responsive to their individual needs. Each person we spoke with said staff attend quickly when they call for assistance. One person said 'They do come quickly, night time is the same and at weekends I get the same attention'. Another person told us 'I just ring and they come quickly'.

Staff and leaders told us shifts were well organised, which enabled staff to be available to support people quickly. We were told that staff had allocated roles which were discussed with them at the start of their shift. However, on the day of our site visit, we observed staff to not be in attendance at handover. We queried this with the manager who told us this was an isolated incident and normal practice is for staff to attend at the start of each shift.

We observed the day to be relaxed and well organised. Staff were deployed effectively, meaning people did not have to wait long for assistance. We observed a good staff presence throughout the service. Staff communicated well with people and attended to their individual care and support needs in a timely way.

From speaking with staff and leaders, we found there to be a culture of respect amongst the staff team. The manager worked in strong partnership with the deputy manager and care home owner. Together they had worked to ensure staff were well supported and equipped to deliver a good standard of care. The manager and deputy manager undertook regular meetings with staff on an individual basis to give feedback. However, the manager did not receive formal supervision meetings with the provider.

The provider had policies in place which supported them and the staff team, such as staff training, supervision and appraisals, whistle blowing and freedom to speak up. The policies were current and offered information and guidance to assist the staff. The provider had effective systems and processes in place which supported staff to provide consistent, person centred care.