Lyngate Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were detailed and explained people’s needs, the outcome or goal they wished to achieve and the actions staff needed to take to support them. The initial page of people’s care records was also detailed and gave a good snapshot of risks, needs and care provided.

Care records contained an ‘about me’ section, which included a range of person centred information about people’s likes, dislikes, life and work history. This information helped staff better understand people and tailor their care and approach accordingly. This also demonstrated people and/or their relatives had been involved in the care planning process.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People received care and support from a consistent team of staff who knew them well. Members of staff worked well with health and social care professionals to ensure people received continuity from everyone involved in their care.

We noted a number of examples, which demonstrated how specific care interventions had been successful in helping people achieve goals or reducing distressed behaviours. For example, a positive behaviour support plan had been drawn up and introduced for one person, to help them reduce the frequency with which they shouted out at staff. This had been successful, with the number of incidents reducing noticeably.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were assessed and described in their care plans. This gave staff information about any difficulties people had with their hearing or speech and how best to communicate with them.

Where English was not people’s first language, some documentation had been written in both English and their preferred language, to aid understanding.

‘Easy read’ versions of the provider’s statement of purpose and the complaints process, had been created to ensure this information was accessible to as many people as possible. However, we identified further adaptation was needed to improve usability, including an increased use of pictures and imagery and more consideration of content and font size.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or provide views about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people and/or relatives in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Feedback regarding communication was mixed, with some relatives being happy with this, whilst others stated they only found out about things when they visited, for example that assessments had been completed or there had been an issues with the family member. However, both people and staff told us they felt comfortable voicing their concerns to staff or management and felt they would be listened to.

Limited evidence was provided to show people’s views were sought and acted upon. A resident and relative meeting had been held in January 2026, to introduce the new owners and discuss their plans for the home. Prior to this, the last meeting had been in June 2025. We were told it was planned for meetings to be held more regularly moving forwards.

We saw no examples of completed surveys or questionnaires, to evidence people and relatives views had been sought regarding the care and support provided. Posters containing a QR code, which allowed people to access a survey had been displayed within the home. However, it was unclear if anyone had utilised these. We were also unsure this was the most accessible way of gathering feedback, as many people in the home did not have or use a mobile phone regularly.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Further consideration was needed to ensure the provider met people’s needs in this area. Best practice guidance, especially for people living with dementia, references the importance of access to outdoor spaces and fresh air. People had access to a secure garden area; however, the door was difficult to open and close, there was a large step down into the garden and just outside the door was a raised grid, which presented a trip hazard. The garden area was also very cluttered, which again presented a risk to people.

A new lounge had been created, which had been nicely decorated and appropriately furnished. However, this contained only 19 chairs, when the current occupancy level was 32 people. As such, it was unclear how everyone would be accommodated, should they choose to use the lounge.

Communal doors, such as to toilets and bathrooms contained pictorial signage to help people identify these. However, due to the layout of the home, which was over 3 floors with multiple corridors, the addition of signage to help people navigate around the home would be useful.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People’s rights to be treated equally and fairly were being met. People’s protected characteristics were respected and care provided in line with their needs and wishes. The registered manager was aware of their responsibility to avoid discrimination, and to make any reasonable adjustments when needed.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Where people had chosen to discuss this, care records contained their wishes, along with guidance on how they wanted to be cared for. Where people were not at the end of their life, but were frail with multiple health issues, care plans reflected this, and also touched on the provision of palliative care, ensuring people’s needs were met and they continued to be treated with dignity.

The home worked closely with the local district nursing team in the provision of end of life care.