Lindly House 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 provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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 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.

Most people were able to spend their time as they wished within the service. People told us that they got up when they wished and went to bed when they wanted and we saw records that confirmed this. However, 1 person said they did not want to remain living at the service and regularly asked to leave. There was no evidence that the person’s wishes had been fully explored or that care plans had been updated with them to reflect and respond to these concerns. However, this person had previously enjoyed an activity within the community before being admitted into the service. The provider told us that they supported this person in their own time with this activity when they were able to.

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. Staff demonstrated an understanding of and respect for people’s cultural support needs, including their dietary choices and religious preferences. Care plans outlined how staff should support people in line with these needs and preferences. The staff team was consistent, which helped people know who was supporting them and promoted continuity of care. Staff also encouraged and supported people to take part in outings within the local community when they chose to do so.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider did not always fully meet the needs of people with sensory impairments or dementia, as information was sometimes not adapted to individual communication needs. However, there were examples of good practice, such as staff taking extra time to explain information verbally, using reassurance, and offering support in a calm and patient manner. In some cases, staff used prompts or familiar routines to help people feel more comfortable.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Although there were regular residents’ meetings, we found people were not always involved in decisions about their care or informed about any changes made as a result of feedback. For example, 1 person said they did not want to remain living at the service, however there was no evidence that this had been explored or acted upon. In addition, through discussions with people, it was identified that 1 person would like to sit by a window in their bedroom, but this had not been considered or supported. These matters had not been clearly identified through regular engagement with people, nor had appropriate action been taken in response.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were not always treated equitably. For example, 2 people were required to share a bedroom, while others had access to their own rooms. In addition, 1 person with a sensory impairment was unable to move independently around the service without staff support. Appropriate adaptations had not been considered or put in place to improve this person’s access and independence within their home.

People had equal opportunities to healthcare if required and were supported to attend these appointments. Social activities were available to all dependent on their preferences.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. One person told us they did not want to continue living at Lindly House, and both the registered manager and provider were aware of this. However, there was no evidence that the person had been supported to speak with their social worker to explore a move. The person was unable to do this independently and required support to access this process, which had not been provided. This person required support with all aspects of daily living due to a sensory impairment. There were no adaptions within the service to enable the person to be more independent within the service.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. One person had not been supported to make decisions about their life and future at Lindly House. The provider and registered manager told us this person often talked about their housing needs, however nothing had been done to support the person with moving.

We saw people had end of life plans in place which gave staff the information they needed to care for people when the time came, they needed this support. The plans had been put together with people and their relatives.