Lyndon Croft

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.

People experienced care that was tailored to their individual needs, preferences and wishes. We observed staff offering meaningful choices and supporting people in a way that promoted their dignity, privacy and independence. Staff knew people well and demonstrated a good understanding of their preferences, routines, interests and the things that were important to them. One family member told us “The carers work hard, they are lovely. One carer recently finished her shift at 8pm and sat with mum until 9pm chatting as she had been agitated earlier in the day”.

Care plans reflected a person-centred approach and included detailed information about people's life histories, relationships, personal preferences, religious beliefs and cultural needs. Care records reflected people's individual wishes and provided guidance for staff on how to support people in a way that respected their choices and promoted positive outcomes, one family member told us “The care plan process was explained, and they [staff] have ensured that all the detail taken is included. I was told that they would include me when the review phase came up further down the line.”

People, and where appropriate their relatives, were actively involved in care planning and review processes. The provider had made reasonable adjustments to meet people's individual communication, cultural and support needs, helping to ensure people could express their views and remain involved in decisions about their care.

People's bedrooms were personalised with belongings, photographs and items of personal significance that reflected their interests, preferences and personalities. This helped create a familiar, comfortable and homely environment.

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.

People experienced coordinated care that reflected their individual needs, preferences and current professional guidance. Staff worked proactively with healthcare professionals, including GPs, District Nurses, Falls Teams, SALT and Mental Health services, and made timely referrals when specialist support was required. Care records demonstrated effective multidisciplinary working, with professional recommendations incorporated into care plans and followed in practice. A visiting professional told us, “The provider is not afraid to call whenever they need advice or guidance, they just pick up the phone and call and follow the advice given”.

Staff understood people's needs well and delivered care in a consistent way. Effective communication systems, including daily handovers, ensured important information about people's health, wellbeing and changing needs was shared promptly across the team, supporting continuity of care. Most relatives spoke positively about communication and felt informed about their loved one's wellbeing. A more table team further supported continuity of care, enabling staff to build meaningful relationships with people and respond effectively to their changing needs and desired outcomes.
 

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

People experienced care in an environment where information was readily available, and staff promoted open and transparent communication. Noticeboards displayed key service information, upcoming events and opportunities for people, relatives and staff to provide feedback. Regular resident and relative meetings and newsletters kept people informed about developments within the service and encouraged them to share their views.

The provider took steps to make information accessible. Staff displayed menus with pictures and visual prompts to support people to understand the options available and make informed choices about their meals. The service user guide could be adapted into accessible formats to meet people's individual communication needs.

Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach to communication and adapted their communication methods to meet people's individual needs and preferences. We observed staff communicating effectively with people and supporting them to remain involved in decisions about their care and daily lives. For example, staff used key phrases to reassure and support one person when they reverted to speaking their first language. Staff had learned these phrases through collaboration with the person's husband, enabling them to communicate in a way that was meaningful to the person.

These approaches promoted inclusion, supported people's wellbeing and helped staff build positive relationships with the people they supported.
 

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 knew how to raise concerns and complaints, and the provider responded to issues raised through established systems and processes. Complaint records demonstrated that managers investigated concerns, took appropriate action and used learning to improve the quality of care and support.

Relatives provided mixed feedback about their experiences of raising concerns. Some relatives told us they felt listened to and involved, while others did not always feel the management team acted on their concerns as effectively as they expected.

Staff understood the importance of responding to concerns and described how they escalated issues to senior staff and managers to ensure they were reviewed and addressed appropriately. Managers encouraged feedback through resident and relative meetings, surveys and ongoing informal discussions, promoting opportunities for people and those important to them to share their views and experiences.

The provider demonstrated a commitment to learning from feedback. A "You Said, We Did" approach showed how managers acted on suggestions from people, relatives and staff and used this feedback to make improvements within the service. Managers also completed regular reviews of concerns and complaints to identify themes, share learning and implement changes where required.

The culture of the service had improved since the previous inspection. Systems and processes supported greater engagement with people, relatives and staff and promoted a more responsive approach to continuous improvement.
 

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

People experienced care in an environment that promoted independence, choice and inclusion. Staff supported people to access healthcare services when needed and worked closely with relatives and professionals to ensure people received timely and coordinated support. Staff maintained care records with relevant contact information, enabling them to make appropriate referrals and seek specialist advice when required.

The environment supported people to move around the home safely and independently. People choose whether to spend time socialising, participating in activities, relaxing in quieter lounges or meeting with relatives in private. Staff supported people to use the garden and outdoor spaces, providing opportunities to spend time outside and engage with their surroundings.

Staff encouraged people to make decisions about their daily lives, including where they spent their time and where they chose to eat their meals. Staff supported people to maintain friendships, participate in meaningful activities and remain involved in their local community. They supported people to attend appointments, visit local shops and access community facilities, helping them maintain independence, social connections and a good quality of life.
 

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 experienced support from staff who knew them well and understood that individuals expressed their needs, preferences and emotions in different ways. Staff adapted their approach to meet people's communication needs and provided personalised support that reflected their individual strengths, preferences and abilities.

Staff encouraged people to participate in activities at their own pace and in accordance with their interests, helping to promote inclusion, independence and wellbeing while reducing the risk of social isolation. People benefited from a range of meaningful opportunities, including visits from a hairdresser, pet therapy sessions, entertainers, singers and themed events. During our visit, we observed people enjoying activities and engaging positively with others.

The environment provided opportunities for people to spend time both indoors and outdoors. People used a large, well-maintained garden with seating areas, supporting relaxation, social interaction and access to fresh air.

Staff worked with community groups and external organisations to enhance the variety of social and recreational opportunities available. These initiatives helped people maintain interests, build relationships and take part in activities that were meaningful to them. Feedback demonstrated that people valued and enjoyed the opportunities available.

The provider supported an inclusive culture through equality and diversity training, equipping staff with the knowledge to understand and respect people's individual backgrounds, protected characteristics and diverse needs. This helped staff deliver care in a way that promoted dignity, respect and equality.

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 received personalised end-of-life care that reflected their wishes, preferences and changing needs. The provider worked collaboratively with people, those important to them and healthcare professionals to ensure future care decisions were understood, documented and reviewed appropriately.

Where appropriate, DNACPR decisions and ReSPECT forms were in place and supported the delivery of care in line with peoples expressed wishes and clinical recommendations. Staff knew how to access and follow this information when required.

The provider respected the wishes of people who chose not to discuss end-of-life care planning and recorded these decisions within care records. Staff remained sensitive to people's preferences and revisited discussions at appropriate times when circumstances changed. When people's health needs changed, staff responded promptly and worked closely with healthcare professionals to monitor their condition, review care plans and adapt support to ensure care remained dignified, responsive and aligned with people's current needs and wishes.

We saw evidence of effective end-of-life care planning and review. For example, one person who experienced a significant deterioration in their health received regular monitoring, comfort care, and emotional support. Staff maintained the person's dignity and comfort throughout and adapted care in response to changing needs.

Staff identified improvements in one person's health and wellbeing and worked closely with healthcare professionals to review and adapt their support in response to changing needs. Through ongoing monitoring and regular review, staff supported the person's recovery to the extent that they no longer required end-of-life care interventions and moved to a green status under the Gold Standards Framework (GSF), a nationally recognised framework used to identify, monitor and coordinate care for people approaching the end of life. This indicated the person's condition had stabilised. The example demonstrated how staff provided responsive, person-centred care and regularly reviewed support to ensure it reflected people's current needs and outcomes.