- Care home
Lawnbrook Care Home
Assessment report published 26 June 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 28 January to 16 March 2026. Lawnbrook Care Home provides accommodation for up to 30 people who require personal care. The service provides care to adults over 65 years living with dementia. The service also supports people with mental health conditions and physical disabilities. At the time of our assessment, 28 people were using the service.
We carried out a responsive assessment in response to information of concern received in relation to staffing and governance, and assessed all 33 quality statements related to the 5 key questions: Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?
We identified breaches of regulation in relation to safeguarding and governance. Systems and processes to monitor and oversee the service were not always effective in identifying and addressing risks. This included concerns relating to safeguarding systems, environmental safety, medicines management, staff recruitment records and overall governance arrangements.
Records were not consistently well managed across key areas. Systems for the oversight of people’s finances were not sufficiently robust, and records did not always provide clear or accurate information to demonstrate that people’s money was safely managed. Records relating to environmental safety, including fire monitoring, were not always detailed enough to demonstrate risks were effectively assessed and mitigated. Documentation relating to mental capacity and consent was also inconsistent, and recruitment records did not always include all required pre-employment checks.
We also found inconsistencies in leadership and staff experience. While leaders demonstrated a commitment to improving the service and had begun taking action, staff feedback at the time of the assessment demonstrated some staff did not always feel consistently supported, and systems were not yet fully embedded.
Overall, people received positive day-to-day care. People’s health and wellbeing needs were monitored, and staff worked well with healthcare professionals to ensure coordinated care. People were supported to access services when needed, and staff responded appropriately to changes in their health.
People were supported to have choice and control, and there were opportunities for people to engage in a range of activities to support their wellbeing. Systems were in place for people and relatives to raise concerns or complaints.
Staff and leaders engaged openly and transparently throughout the assessment and demonstrated a commitment to learning and improvement. The provider had a service improvement plan and was responsive to feedback, taking action to address the concerns identified and strengthen oversight. However, further time was required for improvements to be fully embedded and sustained.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the findings of this assessment.
People's experience of this service
Overall, feedback from people and their relatives was mostly positive. Relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe, well cared for and supported by kind and experienced staff. They described the home as calm, organised and welcoming, and said staff knew people well and responded promptly to their needs. One relative told us they were “glad we chose this home” and described it as “calm, organised and efficient.”
People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and knowledgeable, and said they understood people’s individual needs well. People and relatives told us staff treated people with dignity and respect. We observed staff supporting people in a calm and patient manner, and most relatives said staff were kind, caring and attentive. People appeared relaxed in their environment and told us they felt comfortable living at the home.
Relatives felt confident that people’s health and wellbeing needs were monitored and responded to appropriately. They told us staff recognised changes in people’s health and involved healthcare professionals when needed. People confirmed they were supported to access services such as GPs and other healthcare professionals. Most relatives said they were kept informed about changes in their family member’s condition and felt able to contact staff if they had concerns.
Feedback about communication was generally positive. Relatives described staff and leaders as approachable and said they were kept updated about their family member’s care. However, some relatives told us communication was not always clear or consistent, and was not always timely when explaining changes in care or treatment.
People and relatives spoke positively about the environment. We observed the home to be clean and well maintained, and relatives consistently commented on the cleanliness of the service. People told us they felt comfortable in their surroundings.
People and relatives were generally positive about food and told us people were offered meals and drinks throughout the day. There was mixed feedback about activities, with some people and relatives describing a range of opportunities, while others were less aware of what was available or felt more individual engagement could be provided.
Feedback about staffing was mixed. Some relatives told us there were enough staff and that support was provided promptly when needed. Others felt staffing levels could be improved, particularly to allow more time for individual interaction. However, most relatives said this did not impact the overall care people received and continued to feel people were safe and well supported.
People and relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and would speak to staff or the registered manager if needed. The registered manager was described as approachable, visible and supportive. Most relatives expressed confidence in the service and said they would recommend it to others.