Langley Court Rest 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 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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The managers promoted a person-centred approach, and care staff were assigned to complete monthly care reviews with people. The provider used a “Please remember when you care for me” (written to a carer from the perspective of a resident) exercise in monthly team meetings, to ensure people’s voices and treatment choices were shared regularly with staff.

Peoples’ relatives felt people were at the centre of their care. A relative commented, “My [relative] is old school and didn't like having a male carer take her to the toilet or helping her have a shower in the morning. So, they have made sure that she is only attended to by female carers.” Another relative told us, “It is very good. They will always let me know if there is anything going on there or if my [relative] is unwell in any way. If my [relative] wants to have a chat with me, they will always let them use the phone.”

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.

The provider worked with other professionals to ensure people’s needs were appropriately assessed prior to admission, and transitions were safely managed. We checked people’s care records and saw the provider ensured people’s needs were assessed and met, including by working with specialist agencies to support people’s health and wellbeing. The provider had good working relationships with community health care professionals such as district nurses, and specialist community health teams.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The registered manager understood the accessible information standard, and how to meet people’s individual needs. They said, “We have different communication tools including flip and pic cards. All our residents are verbal, and we detail how to communicate with individuals in their care plans so care staff met their needs.” Each person had a personalised information booklet in their room, reflecting their individual needs.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints policy. Residents’ meetings were held on a regular basis. This allowed people a space to discuss what they do and don’t like, and how things could be improved. The provider had a website for feedback; and feedback reviewed was positive. The registered manager told us they had plans to introduce a survey to invite feedback from people or their representatives.

Managers checked in regularly with people and/or their representatives to encourage people to discuss any concerns about their care or their home. The Registered Manager told us, “We don’t seem to get any formal complaints as we deal with things as soon as they are raised with us. We encourage people or their relatives to talk to us about anything.”

Peoples’ relatives felt able to raise concerns, comments included, “Yes over the years we have had a few. I don't think they were big ones as I can't remember them, but they were sorted out. They were minor issues, but nothing recently.” and another stated, “I did go and speak to someone about the food issue as [my relative] did not realise [they] could ask for food after 5:00 pm, and this has been resolved.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff promoted people’s safety at home and ensured the premises were accessible and equipped to promote people’s independence. We observed staff using equipment to support people to move safely around the home so they could access the communal areas. We observed people using their own digital devices such as mobile phones and tablets. Managers and care staff knew how and when to access emergency care.

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.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy and a zero-tolerance approach to discrimination. Managers considered people’s individual’s needs. Managers supported staff to understand individual needs. Care plans were detailed and included people’s social histories and individual preferences. The home was staffed 24 hours a day and staff were supported by the on-call managers during out of hours.

Peoples’ relatives felt people’s individual needs were met. A relative commented, “The staff are welcoming there, and they are very considerate and they listen. I feel when I need to say something that they give me attention.”

People were 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 provider had an end-of-life policy and offered care in support with the specialist end of life care team in the community. People and relatives, where appropriate, were consulted about end-of-life care. Where people were willing to discuss this, their wishes and preferences were documented in their care plans. Staff respected people’s wishes if they did not wish to discuss this.