Longmead House

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 requires improvement. At this assessment rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person-centred care. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not have access to meaningful activities to promote engagement and provide stimulation. People told us this was an aspect of the service that required improvement. One person said, "I like it here, I would not be anywhere else. The only thing I would say is there isn't much to do."

Several relatives also highlighted access to activities as an area that needed to improve. One relative told us, “I have never seen any activities going on when I visit, nothing to stimulate the residents.” Another relative said, “[Family member] complains about being bored; there is a lack of things to do.”

The home did not have a member of staff whose role included the provision of activities. An activities programme had been produced but the activities scheduled on the days of our visits to the home did not take place.

People did not have opportunities to go out, unless they did so with their families and friends, or to be involved in their local community. The activities schedule included walks to local shops, parks and cafes. However, people told us these activities did not take place.

Our review of records indicated that people had been raising the lack of activities as a concern for some time prior to our assessment. Notes of a residents’ meeting in March 2025 recorded a person’s view that there were not enough structured activities in the home, and a survey returned by a relative in June 2025 commented, ‘I feel that more could be done in terms of activities.’

People received care that was tailored to their individual needs. The manager had begun to develop and improve people’s care plans to ensure they accurately reflected their needs and preferences.

People and their families were not always at the centre of planning their care. Some relatives told us they had been consulted about their family members’ care plans and their views taken into account when these were developed. Other relatives said they had not had sufficient opportunity to be involved in the development of their family members’ care plans.

The manager understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People’s care was well coordinated. People were supported to access health and social care services and had access to the information they needed about these.

Staff worked well with other professionals involved in people’s care, sharing information effectively and following any guidance developed by professionals about how people should be supported.

The manager supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were suitable for people’s needs. Relatives told us the manager and staff communicated well with them and kept them up to date about their family members’ health and wellbeing.

The manager 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 day-to-day care.

People told us they knew how to raise concerns and would feel comfortable doing so. If people had raised concerns, these had been responded to appropriately. For example, a relative raised a concern that their family member’s clothing had shrunk in the wash. The manager issued an apology and offered to replace the item. The manager told us they had also raised the issue with staff, saying, “I had a meeting with the staff and told them it should not happen again. We have to be careful about people’s property.”

The manager made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The manager and staff had worked closely with other professionals to ensure people had access to the care and treatment they required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People were empowered to give their views and understand their rights, including their rights to equality and their human rights. The manager was alert to discrimination and inequality and proactively sought ways to address any barriers affecting people’s experience of care.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics, and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including care they wished to receive towards the end of their lives. Relatives confirmed they had opportunities to be involved in discussions about their family member’s care and treatment should their health deteriorate.