- Care home
Lee Valley Care Services Limited
We served a warning notice on Lee Valley Care Services Ltd on 26 June 2026 for failing to meet the regulations related to the health, safety and welfare of service users and the safe management of medicines at Lee Valley Care Services Ltd.
Assessment report published 28 July 2026
Contents
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
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 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.
Person-centred Care
Theprovider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs and identified risks.
Care plans did not fully reflect people’s current needs and risks, including those relating to their mental, and emotional care needs, because where we identified that people at times expressed aggression or agitation, this was not clearly addressed in care plans and risk assessments. Therefore, staff did not always have clear information about how to support the person.
As care plans and risk assessments had not been updated, staff could not have worked with people and involved them when their needs changed, to consider the care and treatment options which best meet their changing needs. This also meant that the provision of care might not have been consistent because of the mismatch with care delivery and care planning, so it genuinely reflects people’s needs and preferences.
Notwithstanding the above, staff were allocated to provide support to people within the key working system and had monthly one to one session with the people they supported. In the sessions, people could speak about their concerns, changes in their support and areas of risk. This time was specific to them and enabled the relationship to grow between the staff member and person.
Staff knew people well and treated them as individuals, providing care that was tailored to each person. Relatives were informed of changes to people’s needs. A relative said, “Staff are good and have lots of communication with us and inform us promptly if they have concerns.”
Care provision, Integration and continuity
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 received care from a consistent staff team who had worked with people for some time. Relatives we spoke with confirmed there was a stable staff team which helped their family member have consistent care and support.
One relative told us, “There is a carer who speaks [person’s language] and they talk to [family member] in [person’s language] which is brilliant.”
Providing Information
The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
People received information in a format that they could understand and was inclusive. For example, the key working session document was in an easy read format and used pictures. Staff were aware of people’s communication needs. We saw staff communicating with people in a way they could understand.
Care plans also gave guidance on how to share information with people when speaking to ensure people had time to process and understand what they were being told.
Listening to and involving people
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 were invited to the monthly ‘residents’’ meetings. They were able to talk about various topics which had an impact on their daily lives such as repairs, food choices, activities, holidays, and safety.
The provider carried out satisfaction surveys of people, relatives, professionals and staff so they could provide feedback on the quality of the care provided and to identify areas for improvements as required. Easy read questionnaires were made available to people if needed, which meant people received information in a format that was suitable to their needs and to ensure all were included in the surveys.
Equity in access
The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
The service had effective systems and processes in place to ensure all at the service were able to access the care, support and treatment they required when they needed it. They had built relationships with other health care providers such as GP’s and district nursing services to improve access for people at the service.
Equity in experiences and outcomes
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.
Policies and procedures were in place in relation to equality and diversity. Feedback and observations supported the fact staff had implemented learning, and a culture had been created of individualised care. People’s care records showed how staff ensured people’s human rights and protected characteristics were included and promoted. Care plans included information around people’s identity, things important to them, their wishes and relationships they wanted to maintain.
Planning for the future
People were not always 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’s care plans did not evidence how they were actively involved in planning for important life changes or discussing their future care needs. This included being supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they have the capacity to do so.
At the time of this assessment, no one was receiving end of life care or support. The home was aware this was something they could discuss and plan with people, their relatives or appropriate representative when the time arose.