Lark View 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. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met.

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 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’s care plans did not always contain guidance for staff to provide person centred care, including people’s choices and preferences. People told us they were concerned agency staff did not have time to read their care plans as they often did not know what support to provide. A person told us, “No, mainly the agency staff don't know. I'm not sure if they are told about us. I have the physio come in and they have given me exercises. They don't always know this or have the time to do it.” A relative told us, “I think that there is a problem with communication. I don't think the agency staff have read my (relatives) care plan as they don't have time to.”

Despite these concerns, people were supported to meet their spiritual needs. Relatives told us their family member was supported to have representatives from their faith visit them, and another person told us they were able to attend church with their family when they wished.There was a handover system between staff including written handovers where any changes in people’s care were recorded. However, staff who had been on leave or agency staff who did not work at the service regularly may not have access to all the handover information, to know about any changes.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Some people had described how the use of agency staff affected their continuity of care, especially some weekends. Comments included, “There are lots of agency every day. Of a night 2 out of 3 are agency. Although last weekend there were none,” and “They do use a lot of agency staff especially at the weekend, but sometimes I am sure it can't be helped if staff call in sick.” We discussed people’s concerns with the registered manager, staff rotas evidenced there had been a reduction in the use of agency staff, who had worked on the same units as much as possible. The registered manager had also employed 10 care staff who were going through their recruitment checks, which would reduce the need for agency staff.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate, and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. People did not always receive information in a way they could understand; for example, there was limited pictorial signage within the service. The menus were displayed; however, these were not pictorial, so for people who may have difficulty understanding written words, they may not understand what the choices were. We observed staff showing people meals at lunchtime to help them decide what meal they wanted. Following our inspection, the registered manager sent us examples of the pictorial menus now in place.

Relatives told us information about how to complain had been given to them, but they had not seen any pictorial or easy-read formats. People told us they did not have a copy of the complaints process but would speak to the registered manager if needed.

The provider enabled people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. There were no regular meetings for people and relatives to give their views or make suggestions, however, people and relatives told us they had been involved in meetings when they had raised a concern. A person told us, “We had a meeting a couple of weeks ago with (registered manager) and the chef as there had been a lot of complaints about the quality of food. A couple of people up here should have a soft diet, and this was not given over the weekend. I sit with them and know they should have a soft diet.” They had also raised concerns about not receiving fresh water each day, “We requested it and now are jugs are changed each day. When we had the meeting, we were asked what we would like and they have changed the menu. We suggested cheese and biscuits.”

People and relatives had been asked to complete a quality assurance survey in May 2025. The response had been mainly positive, but an action plan had been put in place to address the concerns raised. The action completed included diverting all phone calls to reception during the day to improve responsiveness.

The provider ensured that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff referred people to the relevant healthcare practitioners when their needs changed and followed the guidance given. People told us they had been referred to the physiotherapist and chiropodist, for example, when needed. People had been supported to attend medical appointments when they had been arranged.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes, and tailored their care, support, and treatment in response. Staff understood their responsibility to speak up for people when they were accessing services to make sure, they were supported. Staff worked with health professionals to ensure they understood people’s needs when they changed.

The registered manager completed observations to understand how people experienced their care and support. This helped them monitor staff practice, especially for people who cannot always express themselves verbally or who are highly dependent on others.

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 lives. People’s care plans did not always have an end of life section completed. When the section had been completed, these were not detailed and did not include any choices or preferences. The end-of-life sections did not include information from anticipatory care plans completed by the GP.