You are here

LOROS The Leicestershire & Rutland Hospice Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 April 2016

This inspection took place on 24 and 25 February 2016 and was announced.

Leicestershire & Rutland Organisation for the Relief of Suffering Limited (LOROS) is registered to provide care and support to people in relation to symptom control, pain relief, assessment and end of life care

LOROS in-patient facility caters for up to 31 people, accommodated within four bedded bays or an individual room. The hospice service provides specialist palliative care, advice and clinical support for adults with life limiting illness and their families. They deliver physical, psychological, social and spiritual care through teams of nurses, doctors, counsellors, chaplains and other professionals including therapists and social workers. The service has a team of community specialist palliative care nurses who care for people and their families within the community providing specialist advice as regards symptom control and psychological support along with other health care professionals.

The services provided include counselling and bereavement support, home visiting, chaplaincy, out-patient clinics, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, dietetics, and complementary therapies.

LOROS had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us that they felt safe at the service. The service was committed to promoting people’s safety across all levels of staff within the organisation and included advising the Board of Trustees of safeguarding concerns and ensuring staff at all levels, including volunteers received training on protecting people from potential abuse or avoidable harm.

Risks to people were assessed and where potential risks had been identified these were minimised in consultation with the person. Where accidents or incidents occurred there was a no blame culture within the service. This ensured staff reported any concerns so that they could be reviewed and discussed to identify if lessons could be learnt to reduce the likelihood of reoccurrence.

People’s physical, psychological, emotional and spiritual needs were met as the service employed sufficient staff from a range of disciplines to provide holistic care. People’s needs were regularly reviewed by staff from a range of health and social care disciplines and included staff that provided spiritual support and complementary therapies.

The service supported people within the community providing psychological and practical support. People in some instances accessed the day therapy facility, which offered clinics where people could review their health, which included symptom and pain management along with complementary therapies, creative therapies and social activities. People told us that the day therapy facility enabled them to meet with people in similar circumstances and was a welcome part of the community support.

People told us that staff understood their individual care needs and were compassionate and understanding and that their cheerful and friendly approach created a welcoming and relaxed atmosphere. Staff told us that they undertook training which enabled them to provide good quality care, which supported a holistic approach to care. Reflective practice sessions were used to enable staff to discuss issues associated with their work and their welfare was supported by the chaplaincy team who provided one to one and group support.

People’s medication needs both within the hospice and the community were discussed by health professionals to manage and support people’s symptoms and pain management. Medicines were regularly reviewed and audited to ensure they met people’s needs. A pharmacy team including a specialist pharmacist and pharmacy technici

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 April 2016

The service was safe.

Staff had been trained to recognise and respond to any actual or potential abuse. The service had developed systems for reporting and monitoring allegations of abuse and worked with health and social care professionals.

Potential risks to people were assessed and measures put into place to reduce risks. Where incidents occur these were analysed and used as a learning tool to reduce future risks.

People�s needs were met and they were supported and cared for by staff from a range of disciplines that had the appropriate skills and knowledge.

People were supported by staff in all aspects related to their medicine, which included the use of equipment where required to ensure people received their medicines.

There were thorough procedures in place to minimise the risk of infection and the risk of pressure ulcers.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 April 2016

The service was effective.

People received support and care from a staff team who were trained to meet their needs. Training was well managed by a dedicated team within the service. We found staff were encouraged to develop their knowledge and skills.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were involved in making decisions about all aspects of their treatment and care.

People were supported to eat and drink and maintain a balanced diet. People were able to choose from a varied menu, which included a range of specialist drinks for those with a reduced appetite.

People�s health needs were carefully monitored and appropriate referrals made to other professionals, where required.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 April 2016

The service was caring.

People and their relatives told us that staff treated them with exceptional kindness, care, dignity and respect at all times. Staff were highly pro-active in their approach to care. They demonstrated compassion in every aspect of their work to make people feel valued and supported.

People�s spiritual needs were recognised and if appropriate met by a chaplaincy team who had links with external religious groups who represented a range of religious beliefs and cultures.

Staff supported the emotional wellbeing of people and their relatives with end of life care being provided with sensitivity, this included arrangements for the body of a person who had died to be cared for in a dignified way.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 April 2016

The service was responsive.

The staff responded to people�s physical, psychological, social and spiritual needs. People and their families were fully involved in assessing their needs and planning how their care should be provided, which included their wishes regarding their end of life care.

The provider had a positive approach to using complaints and concerns to improve the quality of the service and was monitored by The Board of Trustees and the management team.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 April 2016

The service was well-led.

The service promoted a positive and open culture and provided a range of opportunities for people who used the service and their relatives to comment and influence the quality of the service provided.

The Board of Trustees and managerial teams provided strong, effective leadership and provided a clear strategy for the long term development of the service.

The management team was pro-active in introducing new ways to meet the needs of people in the wider community and promote good practice.

The provider worked with other healthcare professionals and national organisations and participated in research projects to develop and influence care for people.