Lawnbrook Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Feedback from people professionals and most relatives was positive. One professional told us, “Staff know people, treat them kindly, respectfully and ensure their dignity and privacy.” Relatives described staff as “friendly”, “caring” and “respectful”.

However, some feedback from relatives was less positive. A small number of comments suggested staff did not always speak respectfully. These concerns were not widely reflected across feedback or our observations.

Staff supported people in a respectful and considerate way. People were assisted with personal care, nutrition and mobility at their own pace, with staff offering reassurance and checking their comfort. Care was delivered in a way which maintained people’s dignity and privacy.

Staff supported people’s privacy in day-to-day care. Personal care was provided in private spaces, and support with continence and personal needs was managed discreetly. Staff were attentive to people’s emotional wellbeing, responding to changes in mood and offering reassurance where needed.

Overall, people were supported by staff who treated them with kindness and respect, and their dignity and privacy were consistently maintained.

The provider treated people as individuals and ensured their care, support, and treatment met their needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture, unique backgrounds, and protected characteristics.

Relatives told us staff knew people well and supported them in line with their preferences. They described staff as friendly, approachable, and familiar with people’s routines.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual needs and delivered care in a way that reflected their routines and preferences. People were supported with personal care, meals, and daily activities in ways that suited them. Staff adapted their approach in response to changes in people’s mood, comfort, and level of engagement.

Care plans contained information about people’s needs and preferences, which supported staff to provide personalised care. Staff gave examples of how they adapted their approach to support individuals, including tailoring communication and providing care in line with people’s wishes.

People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. Relatives visited regularly and remained involved in people’s lives. Staff recognised the importance of these relationships and supported people to stay connected with those close to them.

Overall, people received personalised care that reflected their individual needs, preferences, and choices.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported to make choices about their routines, including how and when care was provided. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of offering choice and involving people in decisions about their care. Care plans were personalised and person-centred, with guidance to support staff to deliver consistent, individualised care. This supported people to be involved in decisions about their care and how it was delivered.

Relatives told us people were supported to make choices about their day-to-day lives and maintain their independence where possible. They described staff encouraging people to do things for themselves and supporting them to take part in activities based on their interests.

People had opportunities to take part in a range of activities, which supported them to remain engaged and make choices about how they spent their time. Feedback was generally positive, with people and relatives describing a variety of opportunities available. Some people chose not to participate or preferred to spend time in their own rooms, which reflected individual choice and preference. Some relatives suggested there could be more opportunities for individual one-to-one activities.

Overall, people were supported to maintain their independence and had choice and control over their daily lives.

The provider overall listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Relatives told us staff were attentive and responsive to people’s immediate needs. They described staff acting promptly when concerns were identified and involving healthcare professionals where required. Staff understood how to recognise changes in people’s health and wellbeing and took appropriate action. This supported timely responses to changes in people’s health and wellbeing. For example, one relative told us staff identified changes in their family member’s health and contacted the GP, which led to timely treatment and hospital admission when needed.

Staff were attentive to people’s day-to-day needs and provided reassurance and support when required. People were able to request support when needed, including through call systems, and these were monitored to help ensure timely responses.

Overall, people received timely support and staff responded appropriately to changes in people’s needs.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Feedback from staff about the support they received was mixed. Some staff spoke positively about the management team, describing them as approachable, accessible and supportive, including outside of normal working hours. However, other staff did not always feel supported in their roles and expressed concerns about consistency in how staff were managed.

Some staff raised concerns about fairness and consistency in management approaches. While these concerns were not fully corroborated through records or wider feedback, they demonstrated that some staff did not always feel equally supported or treated consistently.

The provider had recognised the need to strengthen leadership and management support. Additional oversight had been introduced, including support from an experienced manager to mentor and guide the registered manager, particularly in relation to staff management and decision-making.

Staff were supported through training, supervision and day-to-day management. Records showed staff had access to learning and development opportunities which supported them to carry out their roles safely and confidently.

However, systems were not yet fully effective in ensuring all staff felt consistently supported and that management approaches were applied in a fair and consistent way. This meant staff wellbeing and enablement was not always supported effectively.