The Lawn Residential 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 service 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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

People and relatives were complimentary about the service. A relative said, “The staff understand and take time to learn about [my family member] and what [my family member] has done in the past so they can engage with [my family member].”

We observed staff supporting people in a person-centred way and providing choices.

While people we spoke with said they were involved in their care, some care plans were not person-centred and contained contradictory information. For example, regarding people’s mobility needs and support required. However, staff knew people’s well and supported them in a personalised way.

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

The registered manager told us the service worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure there is continuity to people’scare and treatment.

Health and social care professionals were complimentary about working with the service. A professional told us,“Staff answer all my questions, and we get a handover about people. Staff are very clear, and they will also let us know if there are any troubles and a person needs more input from us.”

Records confirmed regular input from various health and social care professionals.

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

The registered manager told us the new menus have a pictorial design. This helped to ensure people could access and understand information about menu choices.

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

People’s communication needs were assessed and described in their care plans in line with the AIS. This meant the accessible information standards were followed.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People were asked for feedback on regular basis, either through the residents’ meetings, or through surveys. Records confirmed actions were taken as a result of people’s suggestions.

A relative said, “The staff are good at keeping me in the loop.”

The service had a suggestion box and a suggestion book available to anyone who wanted to leave their feedback anonymously.

Complaints and concerns were fully investigated and responses given in accordance with the provider’s policy.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Records confirmed people were supported with required medical appointments and follow up appointments. Staff received training in equality and diversity.

People had access to appropriate mobility equipment.

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.

Staff spoke knowledgeably about people’s individual needs and preferences.

People and their relatives told us they felt comfortable to speak with staff and the registered manager. A relative said, “I feel I am able to approach anyone when I go to the service.”

The service held meetings for relatives which they found useful.

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.

People had plans in place, which detailed their preference for care at the end of life. Records showed relatives were involved in care planning when appropriate.

One relative said, “A doctor visited to discuss [my family member’s] wishes.” Another relative told us, “The end-of-life conversations have been had, and both the home and the doctors are aware.”