Lancaster Court

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

People and their families were involved in care planning. Staff contacted relatives when care plans were being reviewed, and they could visit the home or discuss any changes over the phone. They also involved other staff such as the chef and activities co-ordinators for input.

Staff had recorded people’s physical and mental health care needs. However, there was a lack of information about protected characteristics or details of people’s backgrounds and interests to support their social or cultural needs.

People’s care records included input from other health professionals involved in supporting their needs. Information from regular GP rounds were documented as well as input from tissue viability nurses and physiotherapists.

People’s communication needs were included in their care plans. They stated whether people were able to communicate verbally and any sensory needs, such as wearing hearing aids or glasses.

At the time of our inspection, there had been 4 complaints. We reviewed 2 and found neither had been managed well. The initial acknowledgement and conclusion timeframes had not been met as per the provider’s policy. One was of a sensitive nature and there had initially been no response, in another the person’s spouse had been referred to as their child and did not appear satisfied the root cause of their problem had been addressed.

People and the relatives we spoke with felt able to raise concerns. A relative told us, “If I have any concerns, it’s dealt with straight away. They are wonderful here.”

People attended meetings. We reviewed the most recent minutes and saw discussion included activities, meals and cleanliness of the home. There was clear input from people. However, the attendance was low with no one at all from the nursing floor there. A survey issued to people using the service had been issued in May 2024, an action plan was created in response to concerns raised but the response rate for this was also low. Therefore, we were not assured feedback was gained from the majority of people.

People had call bells in their rooms to alert staff if they needed help. Where people were unable to use the call bells, regular checks were in place. The premises were fully accessible and there was lift access to all floors.

The provider had policies to ensure compliance with human rights requirements. This included consideration of the needs of people with protected characteristics.

People were not always supported to engage in meaningful activities which met their individual needs and preferences. We found people who were unwilling or unable to participate in group activities were at risk of social isolation. The provider had attempted to address this through ‘tools down’ which was daily at 11am for all staff to interact with people and they had ‘forget-me-not’ which was a similar scheme to spend 1-1 time with people throughout the day. However, we saw limited evidence of this in people’s records and did not observe it during our visits.

Staff received training in end-of-life care. People’s records included support plans for their wishes at end of life.