Leighton House Retirement Home Limited

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 as good.
This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 64 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were created by the registered manager and a staff member from admissions for the home and contained some person-centred information. People’s support needs were included and some contained details about people’s past and histories, sometimes written by themselves, however this was not consistent across all the care plans that we reviewed. Some care plans did not include important information needed to ensure people the care was specific to them, such as communication care plans.

Some people and their relatives told us they had been involved in creating and reviewing the care plan, “‘I have seen my care plan and have added to it over the years” and “I have been involved in developing (relatives) care plan. There has never been any need to complain. I feel that my (relative) is being cared for well.’
However, not everyone we spoke to shared this experience. One person told us, “I've not seen my (relatives) care plan or been involved in any review.” Another family member said, “I haven't seen my (relatives) care plan, but I provided all kinds of information when (they) came to live here at first.”
 

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.

The home worked with a range of healthcare professionals to ensure care was joined up and people were supported appropriately. During our visit there was a doctor visiting and we saw evidence of referrals to other services in people’s care files including nutrition and dietetics and the falls team.
 

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Communication plans were not included in care plans where appropriate so we could not be assured that people could be understood or were supported to communicate effectively.

Pictorial menus were not used during mealtime to support people to make choices, however we did see staff speaking to each person individually, explaining what the choices of food were and supporting them to make decisions.
 

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

People told us they would feel comfortable raising any concerns they may have with the registered manager. One person said, “(Registered manager) listens to me and would try to take appropriate action”.

Surveys were sent to people’s families to gain feedback. Several people said they were not involved in their loved ones care, however they also stated that they did not want to be more involved and were confident in the care and support provided by the home.

People and their relatives said that they were informed about any changes to their or their loved one’s care by the registered manager.
 

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

The atmosphere in the home was friendly and homely; however, the service was not sufficiently equipped to support people with dementia. There was a lack of consistent pictorial signage throughout the home and other visual aids such as door personalisation. This was needed to help people orientate themselves and locate their bedrooms.

Specialised equipment such as hoists and handrails were in place and the registered manager said they held activities for people with dementia including music, although some people found this too noisy and preferred not to be involved.
 

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.

Nobody reported any concerns about discrimination. The provider complied with equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equality in the workplace. Staff undertook training in equality and diversity and there was a diverse workforce.
 

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.
The service worked closely with the local hospice who offer advance care planning when people are very frail or on an end-of-life pathway. The necessary support and care were in place, however, we did not see the necessary documentation to support this in people’s care plans.

The registered manager told us they spoke to people who were declining in health to obtain information about their wishes and their relatives when appropriate. Some people’s care plans contained information of how they wanted to be supported in the future and what was important to them, however this was not consistent across all the care plans we viewed.