The Lilacs Residential 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 assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff knew people well and adapted their approach in response to changes in people’s needs, mood and circumstances. People’s care plans were personalised and reflected their individual needs, choices and wishes. Information included how people preferred to be supported and gave staff guidance on how to provide personalised care. When we asked a staff member how they supported new people to settle in they told us, “When new residents come in, we have a little chat to them and get to know them and speak about their interests.”

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.

The service recognised the importance of working in partnership to respond to people’s needs in a coordinated way. We saw evidence within people’s care records of how people benefited from joined-up care. For example, input from a Speech and Language Therapist (SALT) was used to reduce risk, demonstrating how specialist support was used to achieve positive outcomes. The service also worked closely with GPs and the community nursing team. A professional who worked with the service told us, “The staff are all extremely friendly and professional. The senior care staff are very responsive, and their priority is always the care and welfare of their residents.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and their relatives said they were provided with information in ways they could understand, supporting their involvement, choice and control over their care.Information about the service and upcoming events were displayed on notice boards in communal areas. A relative told us where required, they felt the service kept them updated with changes to the care needs of the person living at the service. The service also provided a newsletter to people and their families outlining current and future events.

The deputy manager understood the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and made sure alternative communication formats were available, when required. They advised one person was currently receiving communication from the GP in a larger, accessible format.

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 their relatives did not raise any concerns about being able to communicate with staff or management. We observed staff actively listened to people and responded to their needs.

Regular residents’ meetings were held, and we saw minutes to support this. People and their relatives were invited to give feedback on food, the care staff, activities and their bedrooms. Where required, changes had been made, for example adding sandwiches back to the food choices at the request of people at the service. People and their relatives were also invited to complete periodic surveys.

There was a complaints policy and procedure for people and their relatives to use. There was a complaints log that evidenced a record of concerns raised, progress and outcomes.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff responded promptly to people’s needs and took appropriate action when changes were identified. The service understood the importance of ensuring people had access to the right healthcare services when the need was identified. People were supported to do this through planned and documented care, and good relationships with local health and social care professionals.

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 received personalised care that met their needs and reduced the risk of inequality in their experience or outcomes. Information about people’s communication needs, cultural preferences, health conditions and any other factors that could increase the risk of inequality was gathered through initial assessments. Regular reviews and ongoing conversations with people and their relatives were used to ensure people were satisfied with the outcomes achieved.

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.

Staff supported people to remain at the service at the end of their lives, if this was their choice. The service worked closely with relevant healthcare professionals to make sure they planned for and met people’s needs at the end of their lives.

The service had recorded information in relation to people’s decisions about their end of life care. Some people’s care records showed people had held open discussions with staff about how they wished to be cared for at the end of their lives. These records included people’s Treatment Escalation Plans (TEPs), their resuscitation status, desired care interventions and what actions they wish the service to take and who they would like to be contacted.