Lisbeth Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed 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.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed thoroughly before they moved into the service to ensure their needs could be met safely and effectively. A relative told us, “I have been involved with my [relative’s] care from the very beginning.” Once living at the home, people continued to receive individualised care that reflected their preferences, wishes, and specific support requirements. Care plans were detailed and person‑centred, enabling staff to deliver care in a way that was meaningful and appropriate for each person.

Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained accurate and up to date. People and their families were actively involved in these reviews, helping to ensure that the most current information was in line with the care being provided.
 

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People’s needs were clearly identified through thorough assessment, and staff supported people in ways that ensured those needs were consistently met. Staff involved people in decisions about their care wherever possible, helping to promote choice, independence, and person‑centred practice. Where people were unable to express their views, advocates were engaged to ensure their rights were upheld and their best interests represented.
 

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The registered manager worked closely with external professionals and with people using the service to ensure people’s needs were clearly understood from the point of admission. This meant the registered manager and staff had accurate, up‑to‑date information, enabling them to plan effectively for new residents while continuing to provide safe and consistent support to those already living at the home. Strong partnership working ensured the admission process was well coordinated and that people’s needs were met from the outset.
 

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to access healthcare services whenever they needed them. Staff ensured people received the right input at the right time, either by arranging for external professionals to visit the home or by supporting people to attend appointments in the community. For example, staff consistently promoted good hydration and nutrition, ensuring that people who required fortified meals, modified textures, or specialist dietary support received these in line with their assessed needs.

As the service provided nursing care, clinical support was available on site for those residents who had been assessed as requiring nursing oversight. This helped ensure people’s health needs were met promptly and consistently.
 

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Systems were in place to ensure people continued to experience positive and consistent outcomes, with care tailored to their changing needs. People received regular reviews, which ensured their care plans remained accurate and that any required treatment or interventions were arranged promptly in line with their own wishes and preferences. Staff worked together with external professionals when needed, supporting a coordinated approach that meant people’s health and wellbeing needs were met without unnecessary delay.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. This can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that mental capacity assessments were in place, and the provider was meeting their obligations in relation to DoLS.

People had mental capacity assessments in place, and where individuals were assessed as lacking capacity, decisions were made with the involvement of relatives or other trusted representatives to ensure choices reflected the person’s best interests. The registered manager ensured that those acting on behalf of people had the correct legal authority to do so. Applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were submitted when required, and the registered manager maintained regular contact with the local authority to monitor progress. This helped ensure that people were not deprived of their liberty unlawfully and that all decisions were made in line with legislation and best practice.