Legh House Also known as Abbeyfield Legh House

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. This key question has been rated Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff and managers were committed to providing support which was tailored to meet people’s individual choices and preferences. Staff had a good knowledge of each person’s history, communication style, and support needs. Staff were observed supporting people with activities and had meaningful conversations with people about their hobbies and interests. Staff told us how they read care plans and spoke with people and their families to get to know what people’s needs and preferences were. This understanding enabled them to provide responsive, person centred care as people’s needs and preferences changed One relative told us, " The staff are brilliant and very patient."
People and relatives were engaged in the process of care planning and reviewing their care plans. A relative said that their family members care plan “is regularly reviewed with one of us.”
 

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 a range of health professionals, including specialist nurses and therapy teams, to ensure people received timely and appropriate support, with families involved in discussions where appropriate.

The local GP surgery had taken on everyone living at the home to ensure consistency in medical care. A weekly review was conducted by a Frailty Practitioner nurse with the registered manager. Any adjustments that were made to care plans or medicines were then immediately updated on the system. During the inspection we observed this weekly health review and spoke to the healthcare professional. Their comments included, “Pathway management between services is really good they communicate very well and are very flexible.” And “the registered manager and staff are extremely responsive to any requests or advice given.”
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Records showed the service met the Accessible Information Standard, each person received a personalised communication assessment before admission, considering spoken language, understanding, non verbal cues and preferred times for receiving information, which informed bespoke communication plans within care records. Information could be provided in different formats if needed, to ensure people received and understood the content in a way that suited them. Staff understood how to access and share information and a staff member told us, “A handover takes place at the start of each shift, so I am always aware of what is going on especially when coming back after a few days off.” Staff kept relatives informed through regular phone calls, meetings and care reviews, and professionals described communication as timely and helpful. One relative told us, “Communication is great.”
 

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.

Feedback from care reviews, meetings for people and relatives, were used to shape activities, routines, and improvements. Relatives said they knew who to speak to if they had concerns and felt staff and managers were approachable and responsive. None of the people or their relatives told us they had made a complaint and records confirmed there had been no recent complaints. Relatives described the registered manager as approachable and responsive, and said that if they did have any concerns to raise, they felt the manager would address the issue promptly. Information was available to explain how to raise concerns, including how people and relatives could make a complaint if they wished.
People told us they felt comfortable expressing their views and that staff took their preferences seriously.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff worked to accommodate individual preferences, such as meal choices and adapted activities. Care plans detailed people’s equipment requirements to promote their independence. There were adapted facilities such as hoists, toilet and bathing equipment, and adapted chairs to support people to overcome physical challenges.

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. For example, staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people. The registered manager ensured peoples’ social and healthcare needs were fully considered and met. Relatives expressed confidence in the service, saying their loved ones were happy and their needs met.

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.

We found the service ensured essential paperwork, such as Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) or Recommended Summary for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms, were in place. People’s wishes and preferences for end-of-life care were discussed with them and their loved ones if they felt comfortable to do so and clearly recorded in care plans. Where discussions had happened, families told us they were managed sensitively. Staff demonstrated commitment to respecting these choices and maintaining up-to-date plans.” A health and social care professional described end of life care at the service as, “very good, personal but professional and very accommodating to the family and friends.”