Langley Court Rest 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 remained 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.

People’s needs were assessed before they started to use the service and were kept under review. Support plans were person-centred, and considered people’s abilities, communication, goals, diverse needs and any specific care or health needs. This helped to ensure staff had clear guidance to follow to maximise and promote people’s quality of life.

People’s support plans set out their current needs, promoted strategies to enhance independence and promote activities of daily living. People’s protected characteristics and diverse needs under the Equality Act, were reflected in their support plan such as preferences and culture.

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 legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider used evidenced based tools to identify risks and plan people’s care. They followed best practice guidelines and used evidence-based tools, for example, to identify and meet people’s nutrition and hydration needs. We reviewed people’s care records and saw these assessments were being used effectively to inform people’s care plans.

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.

Systems were in place to help ensure information about people was shared appropriately with other services when needed. Staff worked well together and completed handovers to ensure all staff were updated on people’s care and health.

An external healthcare professional told us, “From what I observed, the service assesses and plans care to a very high standard. Prior to each visit, they always shared the care plans to ensure I had the information needed to make the visit efficient and meaningful.”

Feedback received from the local authority with responsibility to monitor the quality of care for people they have responsibility for, was positive.

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.

Staff supported people to stay healthy and well in line with their assessed needs and wishes. Staff supported people to stay in regular contact with relevant external health care professionals. An external healthcare professional told us, “I have no concerns with the home, I really enjoy coming here as residents appear happy and staff are always helpful.”

Staff knew when people were unwell or in pain, discomfort or showing signs of an infection and supported people to access health care services for their health care needs. For example, staff ensured people routinely attended scheduled health care appointments and had access a range of community-based health care professionals including, GP’s, nurses, physios and opticians.

Peoples’ relatives’ feedback was positive. A person commented, “They definitely encourage my [relative] to eat independently and to move. Their eating and mobility has certainly improved over the years they have been there.”

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.

The Registered Manager and staff understood the benefits for improving people’s outcomes by involving people in their care and to develop strategies to support their wellbeing. For instance, when incidents occurred, people and where appropriate their relative were consulted to help improve the support and approach of staff.

Staff understood people’s health needs and recognised changes or deterioration and recorded information consistently.

Peoples’ relatives feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Comments included, “They always ring me if there is any change with my [relative] and they keep me updated. They always answer the phone promptly which is good” and “100% superb. I can't fault it and they do call me about anything whether it is a urinary tract infection (UTI) or if my [relative] has had any sort of fall.”

A healthcare professional told us, “Langley Care Home made a genuine effort to involve residents and their families. Face-to-face meetings were arranged when needed, and families were kept fully informed throughout the process. Staff provided private and safe spaces for sensitive discussions so residents could express their wishes openly and comfortably.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider respected people’s rights around consent and decision making on a day-to-day basis and involved people and their relatives or representatives during the admission process. The provider worked with other professionals during the assessment and admission process to explore people’s capacity to make decisions and consent to their care and included people’s relatives and representatives.

Staff were able to identify when people did and did not lack the mental capacity to give consent. The managers understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and involved the right people (family, friends, carers or advocates) to ensure best interest decisions were made in accordance with legislation.