The Limes Care 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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff were kind, caring and respectful in their interactions with people; however, care delivery was often task‑led. While people’s immediate needs were met, staff did not always actively engage with people in a meaningful way or use interactions as opportunities to promote positive engagement. At times, conversations were limited to task completion, which meant opportunities to better understand people’s preferences, interests and emotional wellbeing were missed.

The provider understood people’s needs and worked to deliver care that supported them day to day; however, some aspects of the service were not always organised in a way that fully promoted choice, continuity or independence. Elements of the environment were not consistently adapted for people with different cognitive needs. For example, clearer signage or visual cues would better support people to navigate the service confidently. This meant the environment did not always enable people to maintain independence as effectively as it could.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, menus were available in both written and pictorial formats. A relative told us, “There is choice with the food and they offer that to [family member]. There was a communication issue with this for a while. They now have picture cards for foods.” The provider’s complaints procedure was in an easy-to-read format to support understanding.

The provider had systems in place to support people to share feedback, ideas and raise concerns about their care and support; however, these were not always used in a way that fully supported involvement. People were not consistently involved in decisions about their care or informed about what had changed as a result of their feedback. While a survey had been completed to gather people’s views, this was limited to numerical scores and did not include narrative comments. This reduced the provider’s ability to fully understand people’s experiences and identify specific areas of good practice or opportunities for improvement. Relatives gave mixed feedback. One relative told us the provider now sent out a newsletter which helped them keep up to date. Another told us how they were involved in care planning, with another saying they were not always told of changes.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We saw evidence referrals were made to other professions when this was required, for example, the community mental health team. One person said, “I had a health appointment with [optician], this was sorted out by the staff.”

People’s experiences were varied across the service. Some people spoke positively about staff being kind and supportive, while others said staff did not always have time to sit and talk with them or respond quickly to call bells. Engagement and activities were experienced differently, with some people taking part and others feeling there was little to do or that they were left on their own. Care records showed good detail and follow‑up for some people, particularly where risks were high, but this level of focus was not seen consistently for everyone. The provider was aware of these concerns, and governance systems had identified similar concerns, with an action plan in place to address them and improve consistency across the service.

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 contained details of people’s views and wishes for the end of their lives.