Lyngate Care 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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.

The provider used the referral form or local authority support plan, shared when placements are commissioned by the local authority, to assess people’s suitability for admission to the home, ensure it could meet their needs and help create initial care plans and risk assessments. Alongside this, a range of internal assessments had been completed both prior and after admission. These assessments identified people’s abilities and areas of risk, for example likelihood of falls or ability to use the call bell in their room.

A separate assessment checklist had been used to ensure all required tasks were completed and documentation was in place, during and following a person’s admission to the home.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. However, some records and monitoring charts lacked detail or assurance people needs had been met.

People’s food and fluid intake was being documented consistently. However, food logs lacked detail and did not consistently document people requiring a modified diet had received this in line with guidance. During site visits we saw the correct consistency of food was provided to people, which indicated this was purely a record keeping error.

Daily fluid intake targets were listed in people’s care records. However, based on the fluid charts reviewed, not everyone was being offered this amount of fluid each day. We found no impact as a result of this, with people telling us they received enough to drink.

Guidance about people’s nutritional and hydration needs was detailed, with Speech and Language Therapy information included in care records. This ensured staff knew people’s likes, dislikes and preferences, as well as which people required a modified diet, such as softer or pureed meals, and who needed thickening powder adding to their drinks.

Regular checks and audits were completed by kitchen staff to ensure they met required legislation. The home had a food hygiene rating of 5, the highest score possible, which was awarded in March 2025. This demonstrated very good compliance with food hygiene standards.

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.

Staff were kept up to date about people’s care and support needs through handover meetings held at the start of each shift. Information such as care plans and risk assessments was stored and shared through the electronic care planning system which staff accessed via handheld devices.

Hospital passports were in place to support people’s transitions between services. These were documents which explained people’s needs, wishes, likes and dislikes, along with key information about health issues and medication. These accompanied people when attending hospital, and or moving between services, to ensure continuity of care.

The provider was working closely with the local authority and their quality assurance team, to help drive improvements and ensure necessary standards were achieved and maintained.

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 had access to a range of medical professionals, including a General Practitioner (GP), district nurses, dieticians and speech and language therapists (SaLT). Weekly meetings at the GP practice were held, to discuss people and any potential health issues. Following this meeting, the GP would carry out visits as and when required.

Referrals to medical and other healthcare professionals had been made as necessary, for example to the falls team, when people had experienced more than 1 falls, or to SaLT where people had displayed difficulty with swallowing food or fluids or coughing whilst eating.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive andconsistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Following an organisational safeguarding investigation carried out at by the local authority during the later part of 2025, the provider had agreed to implement SSKIN, which is a five-step, evidence-based care bundle used to help prevent pressure ulcers. We found no evidence this had been done. The registered manager told us the previous area manager, who no longer worked for the provider, had decided not to implement this. The registered manager agreed to introduce this moving forwards.

As this tool had not been introduced, we asked how pressure care was managed and how the provider ensured everyone who required pressure relief received this in line with assessed needs. We were told this was done via risk assessments, specifically the Waterlow score, through monitoring of repositioning via the electronic care planning system, completion of daily compliance reviews and weekly audits of turning regimes. However, we saw no evidence of compliance reviews or audits of turning regimes.

Repositioning charts were being completed. However, some peoples contained gaps and/or repositioning had not always been done as often as it should, for example gaps of 3 and 4 hours between turns, when should have been done every 2 hours. For one person staff had not consistently documented a pillow had been placed between their shins to prevent skin to skin contact, as per their care plan. We noted this pillow was in place during site visits, which suggests this was a record keeping issue.

We were unable to confirm people had been checked on as frequently as care records stated they should. The provider’s electronic care planning system contained a ‘check okay’ section, where hourly or 2 hourly checks should be recorded. However, this section had not been consistently updated. Hygiene charts reviewed indicated people had received limited baths or showers. Over a 4 week period, 3 of 5 people whose charts we looked at had not had either. People told us they could have a bath and shower whenever they chose to and looked clean and well groomed. However, records did not support this.

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

People’s care records contained consent forms, which covered a range of areas including consent to care and treatment.

Where people lacked capacity to consent, unless they have previously appointed a lasting power of attorney (LPA) to make health and welfare decisions on their behalf, any decisions need to made by following the best interest process. This involves a group of people, often the provider, family members and relevant professionals, meeting to discuss decisions which need to be made, and agreeing what is in the persons best interest. Where necessary, this process had been completed in line with guidance, with documentation and decisions stored in people’s care records.

People told us staff asked for their consent before providing care, and we observed this occurring during our site visits.