Limewood Nursing and 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

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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.

Several care plans were reviewed and found to be person-centred, with clear details about health conditions, preferences, and communication needs. Initial assessments were completed before admission, and risk assessments were updated regularly. One family member told us “They know my relative and they know their likes and dislikes”, another family member told us “They know what they are doing when they are looking after my relative.”

However, one care plan was out of date on the paper system because the provider was transitioning from paper to an electronic system. Current care plans and risk assessments were available electronically, but care staff did not yet have access. The provider committed to maintaining both formats until the electronic system was fully operational.

Staff described working closely with healthcare professionals to support joined-up care. Care plans were reviewed routinely. Staff explained how understanding individuals’ preferences helped tailor support. One staff member told us, “We always give people choice, and I enjoy getting to know people.”

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

Staff demonstrated knowledge of best practice guidelines and followed policies consistently. Care plans reflected individual needs and were informed by professional input from GPs, nurses, and health professionals. Records showed that interventions were timely and based on recommendations.

Audits and competency assessments confirmed staff applied evidence-based approaches in areas such as medication management and nutrition. Where improvements were identified, action plans were implemented promptly to maintain compliance and sustain good practice.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff induction processes were comprehensive, ensuring new staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Handover records were detailed and structured, promoting continuity of care and reducing the risk of missed information.

Staff worked collaboratively with external professionals and agencies. This partnership approach ensured timely interventions and improved outcomes for people. One professional told us, “They act on recommendations and are good at escalating concerns.”

Training records and competency assessments confirmed staff had the skills and knowledge to deliver care safely and effectively. Regular supervision and team meetings supported good communication and shared learning.

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

Nutrition and hydration assessments were completed, and menus reflected people’s choices and dietary requirements. One person told us, “I do enjoy the food, lots to eat and drink”. Staff worked with healthcare professionals, such as GPs, dietitians and Speech and Language to ensure health needs were met promptly.

Menus reflected dietary needs and preferences. We saw evidence that modified diets, such as soft diets, were provided and followed appropriately. Staff understood individual requirements. One relative told us, “The food is always good, my relative is on a soft diet, they also feed them and encourage them to eat.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to drive continuous improvement. Outcomes were positive, consistent, and aligned with both clinical expectations and what mattered to people.

Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed monthly and updated as needed, with evidence of this seen during the inspection. One relative told us, “My relative needed to be on pureed food and now they are on solid food.” Another family member told us, “Two other care homes could not look after my relative, I’m happy that they are here now.”

Staff regularly involved individuals and their relatives in review meetings to ensure care reflected current needs. One relative told us, “They always involved me in any changes to my relative’s care and made sure we were happy with the changes.” The provider also used a range of clinical tools to identify risks and implement measures to reduce them, supporting safe and effective care.

The registered manager explained, “Care plans and risk assessments are reviewed monthly and updated as needed to reflect individual needs.” We saw evidence of this during the inspection.

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

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when there is appropriate legal authority in place. This is achieved through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which form part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We reviewed whether the service was operating in line with the principles of the MCA and how DoLS were managed. We found that mental capacity assessments had been completed, and the provider was meeting their responsibilities in relation to DoLS.

We saw evidence that people made daily decisions about their routines and were offered choices, such as what clothing to wear. One person told us, “Staff always help me pick out my clothes in the morning”. We saw evidence during the inspection of staff explaining to individuals what medication they were taking. One relative told us, “My family member has their medication on time; they tell me what they are having.” Another family member told us, “My relative is very safe here; they discuss every safety feature with you.”

Where people lacked capacity, the provider completed Mental Capacity Act assessments, documented best interest decisions, and applied and monitored Deprivation of Liberty (DoLs) authorisations in a timely and consistent way, conditions were monitored and incorporated into care plans.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and associated codes of practice. One staff member told us, “When I’m assisting a resident, I always ask for consent and explain what I’m doing slowly and clearly so they know what is happening.”