Limefield Court Retirement Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service user guide stated that each person received an assessment on admission and a care plan was developed to reflect their individual needs, preferences, life history, interests and aspirations.

Care plans we looked at identified people's assessed needs and included some information to guide staff on how these should be met. Managers acknowledged care records would benefit from more detailed information and help ensure a consistent approach to care delivery. Care plans had been reviewed regularly, which showed information was being monitored and updated to reflect people's current needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People received the healthcare support they needed through regular visits from the GP and Advanced Nurse Practitioner. Staff referred people to other services for specialist advice and support when needed. For example, they referred people at risk of swallowing difficulties to the speech and language therapy service for guidance in line with best practice.

We observed lunch time period. We received a mixed response from people about the meals provided. We discussed with the registered manager opportunities to further develop the cook's knowledge and skills in relation to catering for people with specific dietary requirements and balanced meal planning. Training in these areas could help make sure people get meals that meet their needs, preferences and health requirements. The registered manager was to explore this further.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The service worked with a range of healthcare services to help ensure people’s needs were met. This included the local GP surgery, dieticians, continence nurse, optician and community mental health team.

Records were also held where information had been shared including, outcome of hospital appointments and tests, correspondence with the GP and hospital discharge records. People also had a ‘hospital passport’ providing relevant information about them, should they be transferred to hospital. This helps to ensure consistent support is provided when moving between services.

People relatives also told us they were kept informed if people’s needs changed. We were told, “[Registered manager] keeps me informed of how [person] is doing” and “They do keep me in the loop."

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People's dining experience could be enhanced to better support their wellbeing and opportunities for social interaction. We found the dining room stored kitchen equipment and medication trolleys. Only a small number of people were seen eating there, with the majority of people choosing to dine in the lounge or their own rooms.

A picture menu was displayed in the dining room, so people knew what options were available. Staff offered second helpings to people who wished to have more, so their preferences and appetites were accommodated. Staff supported people discreetly and respectfully, including assisting with personal care needs following the meal.

People's views about the food were mixed. Some people were positive and told us, “The food is alright. I can't grumble about the food. It is nice and warm and they are generous with it.” Others felt there was limited choice available, with one person saying, “The food isn't so good. Not really much choice. I do get enough drinks though.” Another person told us, “The food isn't too bad; they do always make sure you get something if you don't like what's on offer.”

The registered manager told us that catering arrangements were discussed during resident meetings and feedback was gathered through questionnaires. They told us, following our feedback, the cook would speak directly with people after meals to seek their views. This approach may help the provider better understand people's preferences and use feedback to inform future menu planning and improve their dining experience.

The provider monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met the expectations of people themselves.

Managers monitored areas of the service to help identify where improvements can be made. We discussed with the registered manager how this information can be used to help develop a service improvement plan.

Opportunities were provided for people, their relatives and staff to share their views or ideas. Recent results, gathered in July 2026, showed areas for improvement included activities, meal arrangements and raising concern. In response the registered manager had drawn up ‘you said we did’ detailing what action was to be taken to improve people’s experience. We found further improvements were still needed in these areas, as outlined within this report.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Where people were being deprived of their liberty, the registered manager had sought legal authorisation to do so. We also spoke to a visiting professional, who provides independent support to several people living at the home. They felt managers and staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and were proactive in seeking advice and support ensuring people’s wishes and feeling were respected and upheld.

Capacity and consent was considered as part of the care planning process. As identified within the report, better evidence could be provided within the records to show, where possible, people have been actively involved in decisions about the care. Where people were not able to express their wishes and feelings, staff would consult with relatives and other agencies, so decisions were made in their best interests.