Leighton Forest

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.
This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s care plans were not always person-centred. Some information in people’s care plans was generic or, at times, not relevant to them. For example, one person’s care plan stated they wanted help to stop smoking, but they did not smoke. Another person’s care plan said it was important for them to have a clock in their room to help orientate them to time, but they did not have a clock in their bedroom.

Though people did have access to activities and pastimes, improvements were needed in how the provider documented that people who could not or did not want to participate in group activities were regularly offered other opportunities. However, all staff told us they tried to spend as much time with people socially as possible. A staff member told us, “The care staff, wherever possible, will try their hardest to have some 1:1 time with people.”

Although care plans were not always reflective and current, staff knew what was important to and for people. Care plans also contained personalised information about people’s previous interests, what they did for work, their relationships, and things they liked and disliked. Where people wanted to or had support from their relatives, they had personalised their bedrooms in line with their preferences.

People had received support from external health professionals where required. We did not identify any concerns relating to the provider's understanding of people’s diverse health and social care needs, continuity of people’s care and treatment, or concerns relating to people’s protected characteristics resulting in an increased risk of poorer experience of care. The provider had facilities to meet people's diverse religious, cultural and sexual identity needs.

People were supported to communicate in their preferred way. For example, we observed staff using written communication and visual aids to support one person to communicate. People’s bedrooms were labelled with items of interest or sentimental value to them to help orientate them in their surroundings. At the time of our inspection, the provider was reviewing signage used within the home to improve accessibility for people living with dementia. We signposted them to resources to further develop their approach. A person living with visual impairments told us, “I like when they (staff) say their names when they enter my room.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. There were systems in place to seek feedback from people and their relatives and act upon this. For example, there was a suggestion box in a communal area where anyone could submit suggestions and do so anonymously if they chose to do so. A recent survey had been conducted, and the provider was planning improvements in relation to activities planning, staff allocation to improve response times and the quality of some staff interactions. There was evidence of the provider acting on feedback from people. The service had a ‘you said, we did’ display board at the reception, which showed that people’s feedback had been acted upon. For example, adding things to the menu.

There was evidence that when relatives had raised concerns, the provider responded to them. A relative told us, “If there is an issue, they will do everything they can to resolve it. That attitude is so good and refreshing. I can sleep at night knowing they are safe.”
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service had made appropriate referrals to external health professionals such as the speech and language team and the dementia intensive support service. The service's layout was accessible to people with various mobility needs.

Staff and leaders did not effectively review all information available about individuals' experiences. Safeguarding concerns were not always identified or reported. Documentation regarding instances of emotional distress was not always complete or effective. Care plans did not always accurately reflect people's needs and lacked sufficient guidance on supporting them with known risks. However, our findings result from the provider's systems not always being established or effective in those areas rather than people experiencing inequality and barriers such as discrimination due to their personal circumstances or protected characteristics.

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. People’s end-of-life wishes had been considered, and the service sought input from people’s relatives when they could not tell them their wishes. The registered manager had liaised with GPs about anticipatory medicines to ensure they were managed safely and correctly. A relative told us, “My (family member) passed away last week. We had a very positive experience with the care home. They was looked after with compassion by the nurses and all the staff.”