Lawnbrook Care 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’s health and social care needs were assessed before they moved into the service. Assessments considered people’s individual needs, preferences and what was important to them, and included information about how they wished to receive care and support.These assessments supported the provider to determine whether people’s needs could be met and ensured staff had the necessary information and training to support people safely and effectively.

There was evidence of involvement from people and their relatives in the assessment and planning of care. People and relatives told us they were asked about how they wanted to be supported and what was important to them.

This meant people’s needs were assessed in a person-centred way, and care was planned to reflect their individual preferences and requirements.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider used nationally recognised tools to assess and monitor people’s needs and any risks they faced. These included risks associated with moving and handling, continence and skin integrity.

Staff understood the measures needed to minimise these risks and told us how they supported people in line with good practice, including encouraging movement and promoting continence to support people’s health and wellbeing.

We observed staff supporting people to move and mobilise safely and encouraging independence where possible. Staff discreetly checked if people required support with continence, which promoted dignity and comfort. This showed care and treatment was delivered in line with recognised standards and people’s assessed needs.

This meant people received care and treatment that reflected current guidance and was tailored to their individual needs.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The provider had developed positive working relationships with a range of health and social care professionals. Feedback from professionals was positive, and they told us leaders and staff knew people well and supported appointments to ensure relevant information was shared.

People told us they were supported to attend healthcare appointments and access external services when needed. The GP visited the service regularly and could be contacted as required, which supported continuity of care and regular review of people’s needs and medicines.

Leaders and staff made referrals to other professionals when needed, and records showed people had access to services such as chiropody and other specialist support in line with their individual needs.

This meant people received coordinated care and support from a range of professionals.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

There were processes in place to guide staff on how to support people to lead healthier lives. Staff encouraged people to eat balanced meals and maintain good hydration to support their physical health. We observed drinks and food were available to people.

People were supported and encouraged to remain active and participate in group and individual activities. These included activities tailored to people’s preferences and abilities, such as gentle exercise, games and sensory activities, which supported their wellbeing and engagement.

Staff supported people to maintain and improve their mobility and use equipment safely where required. They also supported people to maintain relationships with friends and family, which contributed to their emotional wellbeing.

People’s day-to-day health needs were monitored, including appetite, hydration and general condition. Staff responded appropriately to any changes and sought advice from healthcare professionals when needed. Professionals confirmed staff followed their advice and guidance to support people’s ongoing care.

This meant people were supported to maintain and improve their health and wellbeing in a way that reflected their individual needs and preferences.

Systems were in place to monitor people’s outcomes and review the quality of care provided. Staff described how they monitored changes in people’s health, such as weight, nutrition and general wellbeing, and took action when concerns were identified. Referrals were made to healthcare professionals where needed, which helped support people to achieve positive outcomes. For example, the provider identified the increased use of pain relief medicines for 1 person and supported them to have a review with their GP.

Relatives told us staff monitored people’s health and took action when concerns were identified. They described staff responding to changes and involving healthcare professionals when needed. One relative told us, “They got the older people’s mental health team involved, they sought advice and it’s all working well.”

Information about people’s care and outcomes was recorded and reviewed, including through care plan reviews and oversight by senior staff. Processes were in place to regularly review people’s needs and make changes where required. This meant the service responded appropriately to changes in people’s health and wellbeing.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

We identified shortfalls in the application of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the use of best interests decision making. There was a lack of understanding and oversight in relation to best interests decisions. In 1 instance, a person had been assessed as lacking capacity, however, there was no recorded best interests decision to demonstrate how decisions about their care and treatment were made.

Consent records were not always clear or sufficiently robust. In some cases, it was not evident who had signed consent forms or under what authority. We also found that not all powers of attorney (POA) had been verified to confirm legal authority, which meant the provider could not always demonstrate that decisions about care and treatment had been made appropriately.

Although the provider took steps to gather information about people’s representatives during the assessment, systems at the time of the assessment were not consistently effective in ensuring this information was verified and clearly recorded. This meant the provider could not always demonstrate that people’s rights were upheld in line with the Mental Capacity Act and that decisions were made in their best interests.

We saw examples of appropriate use of power of attorney documents and staff understanding aspects of consent. Staff generally supported people in a kind and respectful manner, and we observed positive interactions which reflected people’s preferences. However, inconsistent documentation meant the provider could not be assured that people’s rights under consent and mental capacity principles were always upheld.

The provider recognised these concerns and told us additional support and oversight was being put in place to improve understanding and application of the MCA.