Lakeside Court ECS

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 64 (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. Some people’s care plans had not been reviewed within the past year in line with the service’ procedure. We identified information in care records which had not been updated. Some people, relatives and staff told us a staffing shortage had impacted the service people received. We were told some care visits were cut short, reducing social interaction, and records showed some late care visits which had not been picked up by the provider. We were also told care visits were sometimes interrupted when staff needed to respond to call bells. A person said, “There are other people who are using [call bells] wrongly which interrupts their call time with me.” A relative commented, “I’m sure the service would be more efficient if there were more staff, although they do their best to provide good care.” Despite these shortfalls, people’s care plans were person centred and included information about their physical, emotional and social needs. We saw some evidence of people’s involvement in reviewing their care plan and staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s needs. People and relatives gave examples of how they had been involved in decisions about their care and support. A relative said, “I have a handover book which I complete and the carer completes. This is to prevent any miscommunication.”

Whilst the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, continuity of staffing was not always well maintained. Some people and relatives told us continuity of care had been impacted. A relative said, “I find the staff shortage challenging. When specific regular staff have to be allocated to others it creates problems for [person].” Whilst the service did not use agency staff, the registered manager told us the staffing issues had reduced their ability to provide continuity for some people’s care visits. Records supported this. However, they planned to address this as staffing availability and management capacity improved. Some areas of staff training to meet individual needs of people using the service had not been completed or refreshed. A person said, “I personally think the service would be a lot more responsive if the staff were given the correct tools and support to do the job.” Despite these shortfalls, the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and local communities. Staff communicated with other services to ensure people’s care was joined up and co‑ordinated. Staff had completed training to meet the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People received information in a format which supported their needs. The registered manager showed us examples of how the service used easy read materials such as policies and information about health conditions. We saw an example where a record had been translated into the person’s native language. People’s communication needs were described in their care plan. Where people had limited verbal communication, records outlined the methods they used, including facial expressions and body language. Where people made use of technology this was recorded. For example, one person made use of a smart speaker to support their communication. The provider used an electronic care planning system to help ensure the information they held and shared about people met data protection legislation requirements.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. Although people and their relatives were invited to share their views through an annual survey, the response rate for the most recent survey was low. This limited the provider’s ability to gather meaningful feedback and use it to inform improvements. The provider told us they were looking at ways to address this. The provider had identified areas for improvement and shared these with people to demonstrate the actions they intended to take. Actions included plans to improve communication by introducing residential meetings and to increase continuity of care staff for people. However, the provider told us they had been unable to progress these actions due to reduced management capacity. We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about sharing their views with the service. People and their relatives said they felt able to share feedback informally about their care and raise any concerns. A relative said, “The manager and staff are very good. They are approachable and nice.” However, others felt their feedback about staffing had not been addressed. A person said, “I have complained about the lack of staff on a weekend due to staff shortages. I don’t think this has been acknowledges or rectified.” Despite these shortfalls, the service had received a number of compliments and had a complaints procedure for people to follow. Records of complaints we reviewed had been sufficiently documented and responded to appropriately.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The registered manager and staff were aware of discrimination and inequalities which could disadvantage different groups of people when accessing care and support. They worked to ensure people could use the service without unnecessary barriers or delay. Care plans contained information about people’s individual needs, including health conditions, mobility and communication. This enabled staff to effectively support people and make any necessary adjustments.

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. People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service. This included information about their religious beliefs, sexuality, and individual preferences. Policies and procedures provided guidance for staff and supported consistent, equitable practice across the service. Managers and staff received training in equality and diversity and understood their responsibilities in ensuring people’s treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected people’s rights.

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 care preferences and wishes were discussed with them and recorded in their care plans. At the time of the inspection, no one using the service was receiving end of life care.