Lyndhurst Residential Care 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 67 (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. However, some care plans were not always updated to support people’s changing needs. For example, 1 person who now required additional financial support as a temporary measure did not have an up to date risk assessment to reflect this. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s health conditions and preferences. One person told us, “I get up when I want to and go to bed when I want to, the girls are very lovely and they are good with me.” Relatives confirmed that assessments were completed before admission and that staff were responsive to feedback. There was evidence of clinical oversight, and referrals to external professionals were made when needed.

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. Staff worked with healthcare professionals such as GPs and district nurses to ensure people received appropriate treatment. Nutrition and hydration needs were met, and special diets were provided. Staff were aware of dietary requirements and used a list to track individual preferences. However, some care plans lacked detail around specific health conditions such as diabetes, which we raised with the provider.

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. People and relatives described the team as supportive and consistent. Staff liaised with external professionals and families to coordinate care. There was evidence of multidisciplinary working, and staff were familiar with people’s needs and routines.

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 encouraged exercise and monitored weight and skin integrity for those with specific health needs. One person told us, “I’m 90 years old and keep myself fit, I go out when I want to.”

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. Care plans were updated, and staff tracked progress against goals. People told us they felt supported and that staff responded to changes in their health. One relative said, “They’ll get the doctor if I need one, but the matron comes in regularly and she’s very good.” Staff used observations and feedback to improve care, and there was evidence of clinical oversight. However, some care plans lacked person-centred detail, which we discussed with the manager.

The provider mostly told people about their rights around consent and respected their rights when delivering care and treatment. However, while staff told us they sought permission before providing care, and we observed respectful interactions, some care plans used blanket statements about capacity that did not reflect people’s actual abilities. For example, 1 person was described as lacking capacity for wellbeing decisions, despite being described as managing their own stoma care. We raised this with the provider who agreed to review how consent and capacity was recorded.