Lyndhurst 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 inspection this key question was rated good. At this inspection this key question has remain good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

On the whole the provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did work with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. However, some person-centred information required improvements. For example, while staff knew people well and were kind in their interactions, care plans lacked detail about how people wanted to be supported. Some plans used unclear language, such as ‘staff to ensure [person] communicates effectively about their needs’ without explaining how this should be achieved. Another plan stated that someone lacked capacity for wellbeing decisions, despite managing some of their own care. We raised this with the provider at the time of the inspection, who took immediate action to rectify this.

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. For example, care was delivered consistently and in line with people’s needs. Staff were familiar with people and provided continuity of care. The service did not use agency staff, which helped maintain stable relationships. People and relatives told us that staff responded to health concerns and worked with external professionals.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People and families told us they received appropriate information about the service. Staff communicated clearly and were available to answer questions. Staff explained tasks before carrying them out and when speaking with people who had limited capacity.

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. People and relatives felt listened to and involved in decisions. One person said, “I can speak to any of the girls if I have a problem.” Relatives confirmed that staff were approachable and responsive. Feedback was used to improve care, and concerns were addressed. Staff encouraged people to express their views, and we saw examples of people being supported to make choices about meals and routines.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Everyone living at the home had access to care and support that met their needs. Staff were aware of people’s backgrounds and worked to ensure fair treatment. People with limited mobility or communication needs were supported appropriately. One person said, “I don’t go downstairs, I like it here,” and staff respected this preference. The service was accessible, and reasonable adjustments were made to support people’s independence.

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 experienced care that was inclusive and respectful. Staff were aware of cultural and religious needs and supported people to maintain their identity. Staff treated people fairly and consistently. There was no evidence of discrimination, and people told us they felt safe and valued.

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. End-of-life care was discussed with families, and people’s wishes were respected. Staff were aware of people’s preferences and worked with healthcare professionals to ensure appropriate support. Records included information about future planning, and staff described how they involved families in decision-making. People were supported to maintain comfort and dignity at the end of life.