Lakeside Watermead 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service, following a change in provider. 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.

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.

People had detailed oral health care plans in place. However, some care plans lacked sufficient detail regarding the specific support individuals required with their personal care to promote their choices and independence. For example, a person’s care plan stated that staff were to assist with personal care, but it did not specify the level of support needed to ensure a person-centred approach. In another care plan it indicated 2 staff members were required to assist with personal care, providing detailed information about the products to be used and their locations. However, there was no information on how staff support them with their personal care or any reference to the equipment to be used. The provider took this feedback on board, using it to inform staff training and improve the development of electronic care plans.

The provider was committed to providing a person- centred approach to care. People and their relatives were encouraged to be involved in their care plans and their contribution to their development and review was being promoted. A relative confirmed they had been involved in the development of their family members care plan. This ensured the care met their family member’s specific needs to promote person-centred care.

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.

The service worked closely with other health professionals to promote continuity of care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were identified. However, some care plans lacked specific detail on how staff should communicate with individuals effectively. For example, a person’s care plan noted that staff should speak slowly and use flash cards, gestures, or a phone translation app to support communication in English. Although flash cards were developed in both English and the person's native language, the care plan did not specify which gestures to use or when alternative communication methods should be applied to ensure the person’s active involvement.

During our inspection, we found 2 people were not wearing their hearing aids, which impacted communication and their ability to participate fully. When we inquired with staff, the hearing aids were located and placed, but it was clear that they were not consistently incorporated into people’s morning routines to ensure they could hear properly. Regularly ensuring that hearing aids are put in place as part of daily care is essential for promoting effective communication and involvement.

The provider confirmed they can offer communication material, including company literature, training resources, and newsletters in a variety of accessible formats. These included easy-read versions, translations into different languages, talking books, and access to Calibre audio resources, supporting individuals with communication difficulties, sensory impairments, or language barriers.

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 to enable people and their relatives to share feedback and raise concerns. A complaints policy was accessible on notice boards and complaints raised were logged, investigated and responded too. The provider facilitated resident and relative meetings alternate months to keep people, and their relatives informed of proposed changes in the service. This also provided them with an opportunity to give feedback on the service. In response to feedback from a relative about communication of changes within the service, the provider had implemented a monthly e-mail newsletter to residents’ families and friends to improve communication.

A relative told us they had raised concerns with the manager and was happy with the way they were responded too. They commented, “The manager was ‘receptive to their feedback, is ready to listen and takes issues on board’. Another relative, told us they had emailed concerns to the manager, the concerns were dealt with, but they did not get a written response to their email. The provider confirmed this related to a previous manager and systems were now in place to record and respond to all concerns and complaints appropriately and in a timely manner.

The provider enabled people to have access to the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider had commenced a refurbishment of the service and it was accessible and secure for people.

A number of people and their relatives were unhappy with the bedroom moves, which they told us were imposed on them. They described the bedrooms they moved to as inferior in relation to size, decoration and the view they had. For some people, they told us this impacted them greatly as they were much more isolated. In response to our draft report the provider assured us people were involved in the decision to carry out the bedroom moves and the bedroom moves were agreed. For people who choose not to move this was respected and therefore, the bedroom moves were not imposed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to the experiences and needs of people most likely to face inequality in care or outcomes, and tailored support, treatment, and care accordingly.

People did not experience discrimination or inequality in the delivery of their care. There were clear policies in place to promote equality and meet diverse needs.

Staff received training in equality, diversity, and inclusion, which informed their practice. Assessment and care planning processes considered a broad range of individual factors, including disability, age, gender, religion, and other protected characteristics.

We received no concerns from people regarding fairness or equity in the care and support they received.

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.

The service supported people receiving palliative care, and while staff had received training in this area, care plans often lacked detail about whether people’s end-of-life wishes had been explored or documented. In one case, a person receiving palliative care did not have an anticipatory care plan in place.

The provider audits of care plans had identified that improvements were required to end of life care plans, and these were being developed in conjunction with the person and their relative. Care plans outlined whether a “Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation” (DNACPR) was in place, and this information was readily accessible in the event of a medical emergency.