Saint Lawrence 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 provider 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 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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they worked in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs .People’s daily choices were respected. Care was delivered in a kind and person-centred way, and people told us staff knew their preferences well. People said staff supported them flexibly. One relative told us, “She does make choices, and they listen to her.” Staff used informal knowledge gained through daily contact, and care plans were detailed and personalised.

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. People received consistent care from regular staff who knew them well. Staff demonstrated awareness of people’s health conditions, with evidence of close working with district nurses, GPs and other medical professionals when people’s needs changed. For example, the registered manager explained how they liaised with professionals about weight loss or swallowing concerns, and we saw timely referrals to dietitians and the speech and language therapy team. Care was coordinated through handovers and daily notes, and people told us they felt supported: “They always tell me what’s going on.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service had taken small steps towards accessible information, such as using picture cards, but there was no structured approach to meeting the Accessible Information Standard. This meant that people did not always receive information in a way that met their needs.

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. People told us staff listened to them and treated them kindly. Our observations showed warm, respectful interactions and staff responding appropriately when a person became anxious. However, involvement in formal decision making was limited. There were no regular resident or relative meetings, and surveys were infrequent with few responses. While staff were attentive day to day, the service lacked reliable mechanisms for listening, acting on concerns, and feeding back outcomes to people and families.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had equal access to support. Staff adapted their approach for people with sensory or mobility needs, and equipment such as frames, wheelchairs and hoists was used appropriately. People confirmed they received help when needed: “There are enough staff, they come quickly when I ring the bell.”

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. People were supported to maintain meaningful relationships. Where families lived far away, staff arranged regular updates and video calls. A relative told us:“[Name’s] face lights up when the little ones visit.”

People were not always 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 had some processes to review care, including “resident of the day” checks and monthly weight reviews. However, long term and anticipatory planning was inconsistent. Several relatives said they had never been involved in care plan reviews, and some plans lacked detail about future goals or needs. There was no structured approach to discussing aspirations, longer term outcomes or future risks. We discussed this with the registered manager, who made changes to processes used when reviewing care plans to improve this aspect of the service.