Lansdowne Road (67-71)

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 rated inspection (publication date 23 October 2023) we rated this key question Good. At this inspection the rating has remained 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.

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.

People were involved as fully as possible in their care and support. Care records demonstrated people received opportunities of social inclusion and participation. People’s known routines and preferences, including any interests, hobbies and activities they enjoyed were discussed, planned and supported.

From reviewing a sample of people’s care records, and speaking with people, relatives and staff, it was evident that people led active and fulfilling lives. Social inclusion was promoted through opportunities to participate in community activities, maintain personal interests, and build meaningful relationships. People were supported to make choices about how they spent their time, and staff encouraged involvement in both group and individual activities, ensuring that everyone felt valued and connected.

Some people living at the service had developed important and meaningful relationships that staff supported and respected.

People were supported to maintain contact with their friends and relatives. There were no restrictions on visiting. This included facilitating visits to the persons family home, telephone and video call contact.

Staff respected and supported people’s individual religious and cultural needs. An example of this was supporting a person with their dietary needs and preferences inline with their cultural and religious beliefs.

People had been supported to personalise their bedrooms to reflect their interests, hobbies and what was important to them. For 1 person their bedroom was based on their passion for their local football team. Another person reflected their music preference.

Staff had received training in diversity and equality.

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.

Staff worked with other professionals to make sure people’s individual needs were met and people experienced positive outcomes. We saw multi-disciplinary meeting records that confirmed positive and collaborative working.

People were supported by a stable staff team that were experienced, competent and knew people well. This supported people to receive consistent care and support. Some people had additional commissioned staff hours and required a consistent core team of staff. The staff allocation records reviewed, confirmed people received consistent care and support as required.

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

The Accessible Information Standard (a legal requirement for social care providers to ensure information and communication is provided in a way that meets people’s needs and can understand) was being met.

People’s communication needs had been assessed and planned for. This supported staff to understand people’s individual communication needs and preferences. We observed staff communicating with people effectively using the person’s preferred communication method.

Information was provided in ways that supported people’s understanding. For example, there was a range of easy read documents available such as safeguarding and complaints information.

The provider had a data protection policy and procedure and understood their responsibilities of protecting people’s and staff’s confidential information.

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.

The registered manager showed us their process for recording complaints and advised that only 1 complaint had been received. We saw that the provider had responded to the person within the timescales set out in their procedure.

However, some complaints required better recording. The registered manager explained that complaints would be logged “if there was a threat of harm or where an outside body was involved.” Despite this, we found 1 incident that had not been recorded as a complaint. The registered manager told us the person had a social worker who also responded to the complainant, but they were unable to provide records of either their own response or the social worker’s. Whilst no harm had come to the individual, improvements were needed in how complaints were documented and logged to inform and learning opportunities including themes and patterns.

People and relatives told us they felt confident to raise any concerns and gave examples of how they had raised issues with the registered manager who had responded and resolved them. A person gave an example of a concern they had raised about noise level within the service and how they had been supported to move bedrooms that they were happy with.

People received monthly opportunities to meet with their keyworker to discuss their care and support, and any issues affecting them. Records were well documented, and staff recorded actions taken to address any issues, concerns or personal goals the person wanted to achieve.

People also received opportunities to attend regular resident meetings. These meeting records confirmed people received an opportunity to share their experience of the service and share any ideas, suggestions or requests to make improvements. The provider also enabled people, relatives, staff, visitors and external professionals to share their experience of the service by a survey. A ‘you said, we did’ document was developed and displayed for people to confirm actions taken. Example of actions taken in response to feedback was an increase in activity opportunities and the menu being reviewed and changed.

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

People had access to all parts of the service and had helped developed communal areas.

The management team supported people to access services, including health and social care for further assessments and support to ensure they received the care and support they needed. This included reviews of funding arrangements to support people to receive additional staff support if required.

External professionals told us they had no concerns about contacting the service. An out of office on call system was in place of internal and senior leaders to respond to any assistance required of staff including external 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.

Staff and the management team advocated on behalf of people to ensure they had access to health services when they needed. This included supporting people to access community opportunities and services, ensuring people were respected and did not experience barriers or discrimination.

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.

People had been supported to consider and plan their end of life wishes. Support plans had been developed with people to ensure staff knew and could respect people’s wishes. Some people also had funeral plans in place.

Some people had Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) and Advanced Decisions. This information was available for staff to ensure people’s wishes and plans were know and understood.