Lindly House 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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation due to failures in supporting people to give informed consent to their care and treatment.

This service scored 54 (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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Most people’s health and care needs had been assessed and were being met at Lindly House. However, one person’s needs had not been effectively assessed prior to them being admitted into the service. This person had a sensory impairment which meant they required extra support to manage day‑to‑day tasks. There was nothing in place to support this person with their needs, and no evidence that their views or wishes had been properly listened to or acted on. This raised concerns about how well the provider supported people to feel safe, understood, and involved in decisions about their care.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. People’s care, treatment and support was not always delivered, in line with relevant legislation, national standards and evidence-based good practice guidance. People had not always consented to their care, and the environment was not safe in all areas.

However, people had enough to eat and drink and were offered choices. We sat with people during lunch and observed that there were 2 choices of main meal and 4 choices for dessert. The food looked home cooked and appetising. One person told us, “The food is great, try a dinner you won’t be disappointed’. Another person told us, “The food is really good, we get a choice and it is just like my grandma used to make”. If people required a special diet this was catered for, at the time of the inspection there was no one who required a special diet.

The provider did not always work well with other professionals to achieve the best outcomes for people, this sometimes affected how safe and effective people’s care was. The provider and registered manager had not liaised with the social work team to communicate one person’s request to leave Lindly House. Information was not always shared in a timely or consistent way, which made multi agency working harder.

However, staff told us they worked well together within their teams and shared information regularly to support people day to day.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing by promoting healthier lifestyles and helping individuals to reduce their future needs for care and support wherever possible. Staff worked closely with people to ensure their ongoing health needs were met and that appropriate support was provided when required.

People had regular access to healthcare services, with the GP holding weekly discussions with the registered manager and being contacted in between these calls if concerns arose. Additional healthcare professionals, including chiropodists and district nurses, were accessed in a timely manner to meet people’s individual needs.

The provider did not routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff kept records of people’s care, which were used to track people’s health and wellbeing and identify any changes. Care plans and records were reviewed so support could be updated when needed. However, action had not been taken when one person had requested to be found an alternative service. The management knew this was a concern for this person but had not acted to improve the outcome for them.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

We saw 2 people were sharing a bedroom, which was divided by a screen to give some privacy. One person told us they would have liked their bed to be by the window, but this was already taken by the other person. Care records showed that both people were disturbing each other during the night. When we asked the provider how the decision had been made for these 2 people to share a room, we were told it was chosen by relatives. The provider had not followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act to make sure this arrangement was agreed in line with the people’s wishes or made as a best‑interest decision. Following the inspection the provider offered 1 person their own room which they accepted.

One person who the registered manager told us had capacity, told us they didn’t want to reside at Lindly House. The provider told us that they often said this and then changed their mind. However, there was no legal framework in place to ensure that this person was appropriately consenting to their care and support.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In [care homes/hospitals], this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that people who did not have the capacity to agree to their care and treatment had the appropriate legal safeguards in place, including Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).