We carried out a review of the data available to us about Lynwood Care Centre on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Lynwood Care Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
Lynwood Care Centre is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. We regulate both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Lynwood Care Centre is part of a larger village, which includes the care home, but also communal facilities such as a pool, healthcare professionals, a shop, a cafe, a restaurant, a care at home service and independent living apartments.
The service can provide care and treatment for up to 102 adults. At the time of our inspection, the service accommodated 83 people across seven separate units, each of which had separate adapted facilities. Some of the units specialised in providing care to people living with dementia. One of the units was not in use. This was because the provider planned to commence rehabilitation services in the unit. The provider informed us about this using a notification form after our inspection. We added the service type to the location’s registration.
The provider is required to have a registered manager as part of their conditions of registration. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. At the time of our inspection, there was a registered manager in post.
At our last inspection on 15 December and 17 December 2015 we rated the service “good”. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of “good” and there was no information from our inspection or ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
Why the service is rated good:
We found people were protected against abuse or neglect. There were personalised risk assessments tailored to people’s individual needs. Sufficient staff were deployed to provide support to the person and ensure their safety. Medicines were safely managed. The premises were clean and tidy.
The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated codes of practice. People were assisted to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff received appropriate induction, training, supervision and support. This ensured their knowledge, skills and experience were suitable. People’s care preferences, likes and dislikes were assessed, recorded and respected. Access to other community healthcare professionals ensured the person could maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Staff had developed compassionate relationships with people who used the service and their relatives. There was complimentary feedback from people, relatives and other healthcare professionals about staff and the service. People’s privacy was respected and they received dignified support from staff.
The service provided person-centred care to most people. We made a recommendation about the care provided to people who lived with dementia. People’s care plans were detailed and contained information on how staff could provide appropriate support. There was a satisfactory complaints system in place. The person had a say in how their care was planned and delivered. People and relatives were included in care planning and reviews.
The service was well-led. This had improved since our last inspection. There was a positive workplace culture and staff felt that management listened to what they had to say. The management had improved methods to measure the safety and quality of care. The service had developed strong relationships with community stakeholders. We made a recommendation about duty of candour training for the management team.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
At the time of the inspection, there was a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The inspection took place on 15 December 2015 and 17 December 2015 and was unannounced.
We have not previously inspected this location. This was because the provider changed their registration in 2015, to be able to move into their new building and start the newly modelled community. At the time of registration in April 2015, our registration team assessed that the service was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led and found no issues preventing the service from operating. We aim to inspect and rate new locations within a reasonable time after the commencement of their registration.
We found Lynwood Care Centre, Lynwood Court used a comprehensive nursing assessment and care planning process which ensured that people’s care was detailed and holistic. Staff we observed interacting with people were professional and caring and enjoyed communicating with them. People’s opinions of the care provided was consistently positive. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs at all times, and the care home incorporated a robust method of determining correct staff deployment. People’s medicines were administered, stored and documented appropriately.
The premises and equipment were maintained. Cleanliness and infection control systems were usually acceptable, but some minor improvements were necessary.
Staff received extensive induction, training, supervision and performance appraisal for their roles. The service had embraced Skills for Care’s ‘Care Certificate’ for new care workers and there was evidence that staff had successfully completed the many components. The care home operated within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Applications had been made to relevant local authorities when a person did not have mental capacity and had been under continuous supervision in the care home. Further applications for more people were in the process of being made. The policies regarding deprivation of liberty needed some updating to ensure currency of information related to national changes in the matter.
People were offered ample food and drink and the risk of people’s malnutrition and dehydration were monitored. People and relatives we spoke with were very satisfied with the standard of food and felt that staff were obliging when they disliked something they did not like. The main kitchen did not have a list of people’s food allergies or food preferences. We found people had good health outcomes as the care home ensured regular access to the multidisciplinary healthcare team from the community. One GP we spoke with was impressed with the standard of care that people received and the effectiveness of the management and staff team in caring for people.
We found staff were kind and generous. People’s comments mirrored our observations from the inspection. We saw that staff respected people’s privacy and dignity, and ensured that life in the care home was as close as possible to living in the community. There was a large range of activities and events on a regular basis. People were encouraged by staff to be involved in the spirit and energy of the care home but we saw staff also respected people’s right to spend time alone, for example listening to music or reading. People had regular opportunities to provide feedback to the care home and also have their say in how things operated.
The service was responsive to people’s needs. People had the ability to share their compliments, concerns and complaints in an open and transparent manner. Where feedback was provided by people or relatives, management would undertake necessary investigations and report back to the person who complained.
All of the people, relatives, staff and community teams we spoke with as part of the inspection commented that the home was well-led. They felt that the managers took time to listen and would take action to make improvements when needed. People felt that management were approachable and had a visible presence in the operation of the service. We found that the management conducted a range of audits to check on the standard of care. Where necessary, action plans were used to ensure that shortfalls were corrected. Improvement was required at the whole service level to ensure that risks from all sources were always captured and acted upon.