Lakeside Court ECS

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 – 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 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 63 (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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. We found not all people’s care plans had been recently reviewed; we identified some shortfalls and inconsistencies in people’s care records. The provider assessed people before they moved to the service to ensure their needs could be met. They used appropriate assessment tools and considered each person’s needs, including their health conditions, mobility, and communication. The provider told us they carried out assessments collaboratively with the person and, where appropriate, their relatives. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s needs and told us they had access to sufficient information before people started using the service.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were not always well documented. Care records provided some guidance to staff; however, the information was not always up to date or sufficiently robust. For example, information about a person’s swallowing difficulties was inconsistent in their care records and had not been updated. Care plans relating to diabetes did not always contain enough detail to guide staff. In addition, not all staff had completed specific training to meet people’s needs, for example in relation to diabetes and dysphagia. Care plans did include information about people’s nutrition and hydration preferences and dislikes. Policies and procedures were up to date and supported staff to work in line with best practice and required standards.

The provider usually worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Staff had access to the information they needed to deliver people’s care and support. Relevant details were shared between services to support coordination and continuity of care. Staff worked with professionals to ensure people’s needs were met. For example, the service had developed effective working relationships with the housing providers responsible for managing the premises where people lived. Feedback from professionals was positive regarding partnership working. A professional commented, “Communication between the services is excellent and we foster good working relationships.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Staff supported people to manage their own health needs where possible, helping them attend appointments and complete tasks to stay well. People were encouraged to make healthy choices and remain physically active in line with their needs and preferences. Care plans contained personalised information on each person’s medical conditions and health needs. Staff monitored people’s wellbeing during each care visit and kept records regarding their wellbeing. Any changes were shared with family members or professionals as appropriate. A relative told us how the service responded promptly to provide additional support during a person’s changing health needs. They said, “The company have been very proactive to provide excellent care throughout this time.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The provider had processes to monitor people’s care outcomes; however, these were not always completed consistently. Management oversight of people’s care records, including care plan reviews, had fallen behind due to reduced management capacity. We were told the timings and continuity of some people’s care visits had been impacted as a result, and spot checks used to observe staff competence had not been kept up to date. Despite these shortfalls, people’s care records included evidence staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing outcomes and linked these to their quality of life. People and their relatives were asked for feedback as part of an annual survey.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s consent to care and support was recorded. Staff had completed training in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and applied these principles when supporting people. This included seeking people’s consent, respecting people’s wishes and preferences, and treating people with dignity. A person said, “They are respectful and observe my privacy and dignity.” At the time of our inspection, no-one was subject to restrictions under the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.