Archived: Lyme Regis Care Home with Nursing

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation having sensitive items displayed openly in their rooms, a lack of support to have a fulfilling life and peoples belongings being treated disrespectfully. Care was not always person-centred, people were left for long periods without staff checks, multiple people either had no call button, could not use it or it was out of their reach.

This service scored 57 (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.

Throughout the service, notices had been placed on bedroom doors reminding staff to knock and wait before entering. This is a basic element of providing care, showing respect and obtaining consent. Staff members should not need to be reminded of this each time they enter a room; it should be embedded as a fundamental day to day practice.
Other notices we saw around the service included a note taped to a persons overbed table to remind staff not to leave urine bottles there. Again, if a person is given a urine bottle to use, good practice would be to either stay nearby or return in a few minutes to remove it. The person this note applied to needed support using the bottle reinforcing the fact the sign was to remind staff of good practice. If care delivery was person-centred, signs reminding staff of basic care would not be needed.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood and responded to changes in people’s health needs, which meant care was not always joined‑up, flexible or supportive of continuity.

The local GP surgery, Frailty Team and other healthcare professionals were involved in providing care to people living at Lyme Regis Care Home with Nursing. However, we identified examples where people had changed their diet or medicines due to perceived swallowing difficulties and had not been referred for healthcare assessment in response to these changes.

While initial steps were taken to adapt care, such as changing food consistency or medication format, these changes were not consistently escalated for specialist assessment. This meant healthcare professionals involved in people’s care may not have been aware of significant changes in people’s condition, limiting effective joined‑up working and continuity of care.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

The provider issued an anonymous ‘visitor and family feedback survey’ between November and December 2025. 11 responses were received and results were all positive. Feedback overall was that the premises were clean and welcoming, staff were caring and respectful and the service was safe and well supervised.

Regular meetings were held with people using the service so they could share feedback and be informed of developments within the service.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood and responded to changes in people’s health needs, which meant care was not always joined‑up, flexible or supportive of continuity.

The local GP surgery, Frailty Team and other healthcare professionals were involved in providing care to people living at Lyme Regis Care Home with Nursing. However, we identified examples where people had changed their diet or medicines due to perceived swallowing difficulties and had not been referred for healthcare assessment in response to these changes.

While initial steps were taken to adapt care, such as changing food consistency or medication format, these changes were not consistently escalated for specialist assessment. This meant healthcare professionals involved in people’s care may not have been aware of significant changes in people’s condition, limiting effective joined‑up working and continuity of care.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

NOT REVIEWED

People were not always 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.

Some people had plans for the end of their life however this depended on whether they wanted to make them. If a person did not feel comfortable discussing end of life care, this was not addressed in their care plan in line with their wishes.
When there was a plan in place, relatives and the person had given their views on where they wanted to receive care. Several people had treatment escalation plans (TEP) in place however these sometimes meant no escalation rather than escalation to in-patient treatment in hospital for example.
End of life care plans noted if a person had a current ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ order in place. They also noted in several cases that staff should ask family members their thoughts about arrangements after death, as the person did not want to consider this.
While the plans we saw noted information such as whether people wanted to remain at the service, they lacked more detailed information to ensure people who were dying were cared for how they wanted. For example, carrying out a holistic needs assessment and planning for how the person would like their environment, sounds, smells, and who they would like to be there. There were no details of any cultural or religious values that could affect how they wished to receive end of life care.

The provider told us they were working to improve end of life care planning.