The Lawn Residential 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We found the service did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective.

People’ care needs were assessed and care plans reviewed. However, we found some of the care plans contained contradictory information on what level of support people require and how to support them. For example, one person’s care plan stated they required to be hoisted, however it also stated they walked without a mobility aid. The service audited care plans regularly, however these audits failed to identify shortfalls found during this inspection.

We also found that information was not always shared with all the departments of the service. For example, one person’s care plan stated they require their food to be fortified, however this was not communicated to the kitchen.

The registered manager responded to our feedback and initiated a review of all care plans.

Permanent staff knew people well and the registered manager was in the process of recruiting more staff.

Relatives told us they were involved in care for their family members. A relative said, “I am involved in care that is needed for [my family member]. No regular reviews but the door at the home is always open if I need to discuss anything.”

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People told us they liked the food at the service and confirmed they were given choices. We observed a variation of the main meal being prepared to cater for person’s dislike of one of the ingredients.

Relatives were complimentary about the food and choices given to their family members. Comments included, “[Family member] has fantastic choices and is asked on a daily basis,”, “[Family member] is supported to eat properly.Their diet is well catered for,”, “The staff encourage [family member] to eat and drink, and I know that [my family member] does get a choice.”

People were referred to the speech and language therapist (SALT). SALT is the Speech and Language Therapy who provide assessment of swallowing or communication difficulties for people with medical, neurological and surgical conditions.

The service 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.

People and their relatives told us they felt information was shared appropriately with health and social care professionals as required.A relative said, “[My family member] has been referred to the doctor, either at their own, my, or the staff's instigation.The staff are always supportive.The staff were helpful when I needed to access a home healthcare professional for [my family member], and they provided me with contacts.They facilitated the home visit, which went well.”

Staff gave us examples of which healthcare professionals they contact when they require to consult them.

Health and social care professionals were complimentary about the service. A professional said, “We have a good relationship with the registered manager. Staff follow up on things, including little things like catheter bags needing ordering.”

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

Staff knew people well and were able to recognise early signs of them becoming unwell.

The GP visited the service on a weekly basis. This meant the risks to people’s health and wellbeing were identified early.

Information about people’s health visits were recorded and accessible on the electronic care planning system used by the service. This meant staff had an overview of people’s health needs and involvement from healthcare professionals.

The service 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.

When required, people’s weight and fluid intake were monitored and recorded on the provider’s electronic system. This supported staff to identify and respond to changes in people’s health and wellbeing in a timely manner.

Relatives confirmed staff communicated with them when there were changes to people’s care needs.A relative said, “The staff keep us up to date with [family member’s] care needs and health and always contact the doctor and us if they feel a need.”

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

Where necessary, people with legal authority or responsibility can make decisions within the requirements of the MCA. The provider had an overview of who can lawfully act on person’s behalf.

Staff told us they understood the importance of consent and how they encouraged people to make their own decisions. A staff member told us, “Let people make their decision and communicate that with you. Sometimes the communication is nonverbal. Always act in best interest of the person and always explain what you are doing and why.”