You are here

The Lawns Nursing Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 1 February 2019

This inspection was undertaken on 3, 4 and 10 October 2018 and was unannounced which means the provider did not know we were coming. At our last inspection in July 2015 we rated the service as good in each area and Good overall. Following this inspection, we have changed the rating to Requires Improvement.

The Lawns Nursing Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Since our last inspection the registered provider has extended the home, the new build opened shortly before this inspection. Previously the provider was registered to accommodate up to 40 people. Following a recent extension, the provider is now registered to accommodate up to 57 people. The original part of the building is an adapted building while the new build is purpose built. People are accommodated on the ground and first floor of the building. Care and support is provided to people with a dementia illness as well as nursing and personal care needs. On the day when our inspection commenced there were 29 people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were aspects of the safe management of medicines which needed improvement to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed and in accordance with instructions. Pain relieve patches were not always accounted for and disposed of correctly. Audits carried out had identified areas needing improvement however these were not consistently maintained and some areas were not identified within the provider’s auditing systems.

Records maintained by staff were not always fully completed to evidence the care and support we were assured had taken place. Records within the new build were not always held securely to protect people’s rights to confidentiality.

People were supported to remain as safe as possible and staff were aware of how to protect people from unsafe care. Staff knew what action to take in the event of risks to people’s wellbeing. People, their relatives and staff were confident if concerns were raised plans would be put into place to help them.

The provider was awarded the Gold Standard Frame work for the care provided to enable people at the end of their life to receive the support needed. This included providing care at the home rather than transferring to a hospital setting. People’s needs were considered and people were involved in their needs assessment prior to coming to live at the home so the registered provider could be assured they were able to meet people’s needs.

Staff had received training and were supported so they had the skills and knowledge needed to provide individual care and support to people. People were supported to have the maximum amount of choice and control over their own lives in the least restrictive way possible.

Most people believed sufficient staff to be available to meet people’s needs in a timely way. People liked the staff providing care and felt most were kind and caring and provided dignified care and support. People were supported to choose what they wanted to eat and drink and to received support from healthcare professionals although records did not always show what people support people had received. In the new build people’s personal records were not held securely.

People had fun and interesting things to do throughout the day which involved crafts as well as discussions and other ways of involvement. People believed the service to be well led. Staff were aware of the time spend by the registe

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 1 February 2019

The service was not consistently safe.

Medicine management was not consistently robust to ensure risks were mitigated and people received their medicines as required.

People were supported by staff who had knowledge about how to recognise abuse and the action to take if abuse was suspected.

Risks to people had been identified so the right equipment and aids were sought to meet people’s needs in the safest way.

People’s needs were met by suitably recruited staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 February 2019

The service was effective.

Staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s care and support needs as well as promote their health and wellbeing.

People were supported to make decisions where possible. Staff were aware of people who needed support to make decisions and where people lacked capacity.

Food and drink was available and staff supported people to have their dietary needs met although records were not always fully supportive of this. People’s healthcare needs were met including visits by other professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 February 2019

The service was caring.

People were supported by caring and compassionate staff.

People were involved in making decisions about their lives and the support they received.

People’s privacy and dignity was considered although records needed to be kept secure at all times.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 February 2019

The service was responsive.

People were consulted about their care and support and staff understood people’s wishes.

People were supported to follow their interests and engage in a range of pastimes and fun things to do.

The provider was recognised by an external organisation for their end of life care.

People and their relatives had access to the provider’s complaints procedure.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 1 February 2019

The service was not consistently well led.

The provider had systems in place to assess the quality of the service provided with a desire to achieve outstanding outcomes. Audits in place were identifying areas needing improvement although these improvements were not always consistently maintained.

Records were not always kept updated and accurate. Some records within the new build were not held securely.

People and their relatives believed the home to be well-run and managed.