You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 20 June 2017

We carried out an unannounced inspection of The Lilacs Residential Home on 8 May 2017. The Lilacs Residential Home provides care and accommodation for up to 29 people who required accommodation and personal care. Nursing care can be provided through the local community nursing services if appropriate. At the time of the inspection 25 people were living at The Lilacs Residential Home and a further three people were receiving temporary respite care.

The manager was currently going through our application process to register as a registered manager with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). They were supported by a deputy manager. Both had worked at the service for many years. 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. The provider, Lilacs Care Ltd, is part of Stonehaven Care Group which is a family run company providing care in seven homes throughout the South West. Each home was supported by a central support office and a director visited each home at least once a month to monitor quality standards. This is the first inspection since the new provider, Lilacs Care Ltd, registered with CQC on 16 December 2015.

At this inspection we found the service was meeting all regulatory requirements and we did not identify any concerns with the care provided to people living at the home. One relative said, "I come regularly and I can always leave knowing [person’s name] is happy. The staff communicate well and the manager will ring and reassure me everything is ok.”

On the day of the inspection there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home and we saw staff interacted with people in a friendly and respectful way. People were able to choose what they wanted to do and enjoyed spending time with the staff who were visible and attentive. There was a lot of staff interaction and engagement with people, most of whom were living with dementia and unable to tell us directly about their experiences. They looked comfortable and happy to spend time in the large conservatory. People were encouraged and supported to maintain their independence. There was a sense of purpose as people engaged with staff, watched what was going on, played games and pottered around the home or went out into the garden with relatives. The majority of people were living with dementia and were independently mobile or required some assistance from one care worker. Staff engaged with them in ways which reflected people's individual needs and understanding, ensuring people mobilised safely from a discreet distance.

People were provided with good opportunities for activities, engagement and trips out. These were well thought out in an individual way and the manager had previously been the activity co-ordinator. They had identified that the service could improve activities by providing smaller items to touch and interact with when there was not an organised activity planned. They had resourced activity kits from a specialist dementia service and planned to add these into the day to day programme. For example, appropriate dementia focussed games, art and visual stimulation. People could choose to take part if they wished and when some people preferred to stay in their rooms, staff checked them regularly spending one to one time with them.

People and relatives said the home was a safe place for them to live. One person was able to tell us, “The girls are all top hole! I’m a people person and I like it here.” Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. All were clear about how to report any concerns. Staff were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to ensure people were protected. Any safeguarding concerns had been managed well with prov

Inspection areas



Updated 20 June 2017

The service was safe.

People benefitted from support from enough staff to meet their needs in a timely way.

People benefitted from well maintained and equipped accommodation in a homely environment.

People were protected from the risk of harm or abuse whilst independence was promoted in a balanced way.

People were supported with their medicines in a safe way by staff who had appropriate training.



Updated 20 June 2017

The service was effective.

People and/or their representatives were involved in their care and were cared for in accordance with their preferences and choices.

Staff had good knowledge of each person and how to meet their needs.

Staff received on-going training to make sure they had the skills and knowledge to provide effective care to people.

People saw health and social care professionals when they needed to. This made sure they received appropriate care and treatment.

Staff ensured people's human and legal rights were protected.



Updated 20 June 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people with dignity and respect, promoting independence and maintaining people's privacy.

People and/or their representatives were consulted, listened to and their views were acted upon.

People and/or their representatives were confident their wishes related to end of life care would be followed.



Updated 20 June 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care and support which was responsive to their changing needs and met people’s social and leisure needs.

People made choices about aspects of their day to day lives.

People and/or their representatives were involved in planning and reviewing their care.

People and/or their representatives shared their views on the care they received and on the home more generally.

People's experiences, concerns or complaints were used to improve the service where possible and practical.



Updated 20 June 2017

The service was well led.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure areas for improvement were identified and addressed in a timely way.

The service took account of good practice guidelines and sought timely advice from relevant health professionals and used various resources to improve care.

There was an honest and open culture within the very stable staff team who felt well supported by management and the provider.

People benefitted from a well organised home with clear lines of accountability and responsibility within the management team.

Staff worked in partnership with other professionals to make sure people received appropriate support to meet their needs.