Langdale House

Langdale house had two buildings, one accommodated for eight people and the other building consisted of two separate flats. The service was well decorated and had a pleasant, happy environment. Most people always had one staff member with them. All bedrooms had ensuites which included shower units and all rooms had key locks. People had access to two communal lounges, a dining area, laundry rooms and a kitchen.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. As part of this assessment, we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a structured framework for directly observing and reporting on the quality of care experienced by people who may not be able to describe this themselves. Our observations confirmed the approach of staff was caring, kind, gentle, and people’s views mattered and were listened to.

Safety was a priority for everyone, and leaders embed a culture of openness and collaboration. Leaders understood and monitored signs of closed cultures. There was strong awareness of safety hazards and risks. Solutions to risks were developed collaboratively, with people and system partners who made improvements.

Leaders ensured there were enough skilled staff to deliver safe care. Langdale house did not use agency staff, and the service had a low staff turnover. People described the service and staff as exceptionally kind, considerate and empathetic.

People had regular contact with families and were supported to maintain personal relationships with family and friends. Langdale house had a designated house phone, but people could also use personal phones to contact their loved ones.

People’s wishes and choices were fully understood, and the service made every effort to uphold these, so people could live their best lives as independently as practically possible. When outside, those people who required help with walking were offered walkers, or wheelchairs, if they wished.

People’s needs were considered, and this took account language, communication, ability to understand and capacity when decisions were made.

There were clear, consistent and easily understood approaches to reviewing concerns, including those raised by people and communities, using external people and professionals, to make sure an appropriate approach was taken to address them.

Staff interacted well with people and were mindful of their wishes. Staff told us they encouraged people with their independence and promoted choice. Feedback was actively sought and welcomed from people and communities. This was used to drive service improvements.