Limefield Court Retirement Home

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 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 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 decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care records had been transferred to an electronic system. Information reflected peoples routines, and the care and support required. Daily records were also completed by care staff to show what assistance had been provided. However, we found information could be expanded upon to provide more personalised information about the person, their lives and experiences. Daily records also lacked information about people’s day, focusing more on tasks. More comprehensive information would help staff support people to achieve positive outcomes.

People were supported by a consistent team who clearly understood their individual needs. From our observation interactions between people and staff were warm and respectful.

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 in partnership with healthcare teams, people and their families to ensure care and support met people’s needs. Changes in people’s care and support was shared through daily handovers, group chats and staff handset updates.

The local authority continued to oversee and review the service as part of its commissioning arrangements.

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

The provider was aware of the Accessible Information Standards. Information was presented to people in a suitable format. Alternative formats would be provided, such as large print, if required.

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.

Systems were in place for reporting and responding to any complaints and concerns. People and their relatives said they knew who to speak with if they had any concerns. One person told us, “No complaints. The manager is good, if I did have a problem I'd be happy to talk to her about it" and “I haven’t any complaints here."

Relatives were also positive about the management of the home. One relative said, “[Registered manager] is easy to talk to. I haven't any complaints about [person] care or safety here.” Another relative told us, “It does seem a good home. [Person] is safe and looked after and the manager is easy to talk to and ask things if we need to.”

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

Staff worked closely with the GP to help people access the care, support and treatment they needed. The service had an emergency contingency plan, and the registered manager was available to provide additional advice and support outside office hours.

The home had level access for wheelchair users, with appropriate aids and adaptations to support people’s safety and mobility.

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.

The service had a service user guide which outlined the providers commitment to respecting people’s protected characteristics. Training in equality and diversity was completed by staff to help develop their knowledge and understanding.

Effective systems were in place to ensure lawful restrictions are in place, so people’s rights were protected. Advocacy support was available for people, where necessary, so their voice was heard. A visiting professional told us, “[Staff member] is good at advocating for people.”

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.

Care plans provided some information about people’s goals and desired outcomes. Where people had discussed their end-of-life wishes, these were recorded in their care plan, including a copy of any ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) decision.

We were told the home would involve people’s families and relevant healthcare professionals, including GPs and community nurses, to ensure their care needs were met and their comfort and safety maintained.