Lindau Residential 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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. Before people moved into the service their needs were assessed. These assessments were used to develop the person’s care plans and make the decisions about the staffing hours and skills needed to support the person. Some of the assessments we viewed did not contain detailed information, which meant it was difficult to gain a full picture of people’s needs. We discussed this with the management team and changes were made to the assessment form to enable more detailed information. The assessment included making sure that support was planned for people’s diversity needs, such as their religion, gender, marital status, culture and their abilities.

Each person’s care plan and assessments were also reassessed once a month. People were reassessed as their needs changed to ensure the care they received met their needs. Some assessments included information about what people could do for themselves.

People told us they were involved in their assessments and care planning processes. Relatives told us they had been involved in the assessment and care planning process when their family members first moved to the service. A relative said, “They visited her at home before admission, worked with us and mum to put together the care plan.” Staff told us important information and changes to people’s care needs were passed on at handover meetings and documented in handover notes on the electronic system.

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. However, whilst we observed people being offered drinks, we found fluid charts were not completed for people who had fluid targets to meet.

Care plans and risk assessments described what people’s assessed needs were in relation to food. This was not always clear for everyone. For example, a person’s care plan detailed they followed a Halal diet. Their records showed they had eaten pork products and meats which were not Halal. The registered manager explained that the information about the diet had not been updated following discussions with the person and their social worker. They told us the person had been choosing foods which contained pork even when staff had explained it contained pork. The registered manager said, “I fully agree that the Care Plan was not detailed enough and could have provided greater clarity regarding [person’s] Halal diet.”

Nobody was prescribed a modified diet people. The International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) framework which details types of modified diets was available in the kitchen for staff responsible for preparing, cooking and serving meals. Kitchen staff and those responsible for supporting people with their food had a good understanding of people’s assessed needs in relation to allergies and food intolerances. Staff told us they helped people to make their meal choices if they needed it.

We carried out observations at mealtimes. The food looked appealing and smelt appetising. People were offered second helpings. Staff were seen to be attentive in the dining area and lounge. The atmosphere in the dining area was calm and relaxed. The dining area was full, and it was difficult for some people to move in and out (a person had to stand and move away from the table to enable a person using a wheelchair to get through to the table they wanted to sit at). The registered manager told us that the provider had plans to make an extension to the communal space to create a larger dining area to meet people’s needs.

We received mixed feedback about the food. Comments included, “There is plenty of food to eat. There isn’t always exactly what I want, but I can find something. We have lots of chicken. I guess it is cheap. The mashed potato can be undercooked, and the roast potatoes hard. I haven’t complained to the chef, it is difficult cooking for so many people”; “I’m not fussy, I eat all the food. Food is fresh, we don’t have tinned things”; “The food is very good, freshly cooked”; “The meals are beautiful. I like the puddings, pies and custard. I have a weekly weigh-in. I had lost weight last time. Some people are weighed once a month” and “The food is beautiful. I like the ice-cream and cheesecakes.”

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 provider had a clear process in place to escalate health concerns.

Staff worked with health professionals to ensure people got the care and support they needed. The registered manager and some staff told us, referrals were made to the local hospice when people were at end of life, to seek advice and support. Staff told us there were good links with other health professionals such as SaLT (Speech and Language Therapy), the GP and the home visiting team. The service received nursing support from community nurses who visited the service.

People told us staff worked with GP’s and health professionals to meet their health needs. Comments included, “The staff would call a doctor if I was unwell” and “A chiropodist comes in and cuts my toenails.”Relatives said that people’s health needs were well met. A relative told us, “They meet her health needs well.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

A person had moved into the service to recover and gain strength and was shortly going to be discharged back to their own home. People told us they were supported with their healthcare. We observed healthcare professionals visiting people at the service to carry out dressing changes and to carry out health checks because staff had identified the person appeared not to be well. During the assessment a person had been acting out of character. Staff had suspected the person had a urine infection. They reported this to the surgery, and a urine sample was obtained. The person did have a urine infection and antibiotic medicine was obtained quickly. Staff had a good understanding of meeting people’s changing needs.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff worked together as a team to support people and to ensure people received their care and support in the way they chose. At staff member said, “The optician came in the home last night and checked a couple of the residents’ glasses who were having problems. It is very difficult getting hold of a dentist to come into the home. If the resident is mobile the staff, or a family member, can take them to a dentist.”

A person said, “This place is much nicer than other places. Several of the carers are very good.” Another person told us, “Everybody is very caring, the staff and residents.” People told us they had built friendships within the service, and we saw that people chose who they wanted to spend their time with.

A relative said, “The care [person] is given here is fantastic. They are very patient with him.” Staff also recognised when people’s relatives needed help and support. A relative told us, “The staff always make me very welcome, absolutely. I come in every day. The staff said that I could move in as well.”

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty. The service did not always work within the principles of the MCA. CCTV had been installed and introduced at the service on 17 October 2025, to monitor communal areas. We found consent had not been formally sought and recorded for people using the service or staff employed. Consent forms were created during the assessment and were filled out with people after our site visits. The registered manager told us, “We did gain verbal consent from staff and residents prior to the system being installed.”

Care was person centred. We observed people being offered choices throughout the day and people told us they felt listened to and their views and opinions were important to staff. However, on day 1 of the assessment people were not routinely offered choices of drinks. People were only offered tea, rather than being offered a range of hot and cold drinks. We spoke with the management team about this, and action was taken. On day 2, people were offered a range of hot drinks.

A person said, “We can choose when we get up and go to bed.” Relatives told us people made choices about what they wanted to do and whether to be involved in activities. A relative said, “We chose the room.”