Lavender House Residential Home

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People were assessed prior to admission and the registered manager completed shifts on the floor each month with the team to ensure people’s needs were being met. Staff explained how they were kept up to date with people’s needs through regular reviews, reading people’s care plans and daily handover meetings. One family member told us, “All staff know residents on a personal level really well and I genuinely think they know every resident’s needs in detail.”

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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. Monitoring people after an incident was not always robustly documented. For example, one person had fallen and it was unclear whether this person had been monitored and when this person’s condition had improved.

However, one health professional told us positive outcomes were observed during their visits. Care plans were reviewed monthly and the registered manager confirmed staff prepared a list in readiness for the weekly GP visits.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.