Lingdale Lodge

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Systems and processes were effective in identifying people’s assessed needs and reviewing them to ensure people’s care,treatment and health and communication needs were met.

People and their relatives were consulted to help develop personalised care. There was some mixed feedback with involvement with the review process. A relative said, “There was a care plan meeting involving staff from Lingdale Lodge, the family and my relative together with a social worker.” However, another told us, “I haven’t seen a care plan for mum apart from the hospital discharge summary. We did meet with the home to discuss everything but haven’t seen anything formal. But communication is good, and we are kept updated on everything.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with current legislation and good practice.

Staff had a good knowledge of best practice and were able to support people effectively with their individual need needs. Staff had undergone and received regular refresher sessions as part of thorough training arrangements in place on health needs and different health and social care conditions.

Staff spoke positively about their training. One staff member told us, “The training is good, and we are supported with our personal development. Opportunities to progress to senior roles are offered like I was when I trained to be a senior carer.”

The provider 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. Managers and staff and leaders worked in partnership with external professionals to ensure care and support was holistic.

Good relationships were held between the service and professionals. We spoke with 4 visiting health professionals during the inspection, all of which provided positive feedback on how the service works with them. One told us, “I visit regularly and am currently supporting 3 people with a health need. Staff work well with me and are supportive, follow our recommendations and contact us promptly for advice.”

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

People were supported to access health care professionals when they needed them. This included visits from district and community nurses.

The registered manager was liaising with the local GP service for onsite visits. They commented, “Visits from GPs to the home is far better than remote ones we currently have. I am trying as best as I can to get this in place.

The provider 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.

People’s health and well-being was routinely monitored. Prompt action in contacting appropriate services were taken to any change in people’s healthcare needs so these were reviewed without delay. People and relatives confirmed this which in turn was reported to us by the healthcare professionals we spoke with. One relative told us, “A few weeks ago my [family member] became unwell. The carer supporting them at the time knew something wasn’t quite right and immediately called the doctor.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were involved in decisions about their care and permission to provide care and support was sought prior to care being received. Our observations of staff interactions with people confirmed they understood people’s rights to refuse care and the importance of gaining consent.

Records included assessments of people’s mental capacity to make informed decisions were undertaken where required. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been applied, and best interest decisions made, where people lacked capacity to make informed decisions and consent to their care. There was a process in place to track and monitor DoLS applications, authorisations of these and the review of them.