We carried out a review of the data available to us about Lashbrook House Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Lashbrook House Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Lashbrook House is a purpose-built residential care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 46 people across two separate floors. At the time of our inspection there were 31 people living at the service and only on the ground floor.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People living at Lashbrook House had excellent opportunities and access to a variety of activities to prevent social isolation. Social activities met people's individual needs and followed best practice guidance so people could live as full a life as possible. Activities were overseen by a committed, passionate and experienced staff team.
The service had gone the extra mile to find out what people had done in the past, evaluated whether it could accommodate activities to reflect these, and made them happen. The service had recognised and made every effort to encourage and support people to develop and maintain relationships with people that matter to them. The service took a key role in the local community and was actively involved in building further links within community. People told us they enjoyed and benefitted from these links.
Staff at Lashbrook House focused on providing person-centred care and support and achieved exceptional results. Staff took time to understand people’s individual needs and used that to improve their care and outcomes. We saw many examples of how people’s quality of life and wellbeing had significantly improved.
People told us they felt safe living at Lashbrook House. Staff knew how to identify and report any concerns. The provider continued to recruit staff using initiatives such as overseas recruitment. The provider had safe recruitment and selection processes in place.
Risks to people's safety and well-being were managed through a risk management process. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs. Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed.
People and relatives told us staff were caring. Staff did all they could to promote people’s independence and we saw examples of this. People received personalised care, tailored to their individual needs and preferences, and staff supported people and their relatives to be involved with decisions relating to their care. People's privacy and dignity was upheld through the approaches taken by staff as well as in relation to the care environment, as people each had access to their own bedrooms with ensuite bathroom facilities.
People had a pleasant well-presented dining experience which offered a variety of appetising food choices available at times that suited people’s preferences. The menu was overseen, and food prepared by an enthusiastic catering team who always looked at creative ways of continuously improving people’s dining experience. Staff supported people to maintain food and fluid intakes, including, providing snacks, and making people hot drinks during the night to help them relax and maintain their comfort. People’s feedback on food had been used to improve the dining experience.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff had a particularly good understanding of when the principles of the Mental Capacity Act should be applied. People were supported to meet their nutritional needs and complimented the food at the home.
The home was well-led by a registered manager who was committed to improving people’s quality of life. They and the new provider put people at the centre of all they did and had plans to continuously improve people's care. There was a clear management structure in place and a long-standing team of staff who worked well as a team. The provider had clear oversight of the service and effective quality assurance systems in place that they used to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Staff worked well with external social and health care professionals.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for the service under the previous provider was good, published on 10 March 2021.
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Lashbrook House is care home registered to accommodate up to 46 people that require nursing or personal care.
We found the following examples of good practice:
The provider had sufficient stock of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) which complied with the quality standards.
Staff participated in various training sessions around infection control and using PPE. Staff's competency around infection control and PPE was checked regularly to prevent staff complacency. There were designated areas for donning and doffing PPE. There was signage all around the service on donning and doffing PPE and handwashing. We observed staff wearing PPE as per guidelines.
The home had not had any Covid-19 outbreaks since the start of the pandemic. The registered manager told us this had been mainly due to a strict screening process, effective communication and an established team of staff
Several visitation adjustments had been introduced including end of life, essential care givers, and indoor visits which were safely facilitated for relatives on a pre-booking basis.
On arrival to the service, infection control procedures were explained to visitors and pre entry screening completed. We saw visitors were provided and required to wear the appropriate PPE in line with government guidelines. Healthcare professionals and tradesmen were asked to evidence their vaccination status before entry.
The provider had robust systems to ensure safe admissions, including only allowing new admissions after a confirmed negative result of the Covid-19 test. The provider had also assessed the environment, with consideration given where to allocate people should they need to isolate.
Additional cleaning schedules had been introduced to ensure robust measures to reduce infection risks, including additional tasks such as cleaning of any regular touchpoint surfaces.
The provider participated in the Covid-19 regular testing programme for both people and staff.
Impact assessments to ensure appropriate support for staff had been carried out, these included individual health conditions and personal circumstances. Staff had access to dedicated counselling and advice if they been affected directly or indirectly by Covid-19.
Additional, regular communication took place. This included updates for people and their relatives to share the current 'Covid-19 status' of the service and any changes to the visiting policy.