Lawnbrook Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people to decide how to respond to changes in their needs.

Some people and their relatives told us they were not always involved in formal reviews of care. Records did not consistently demonstrate how people and their relatives were involved in reviewing and updating care plans. This meant it was not always clear that people were supported to actively participate in decisions about their care or that their views were consistently reflected in care planning. This limited the provider’s ability to evidence effective partnership working.

While people and relatives said they were generally kept informed about changes to care, this did not always reflect active involvement in formal review processes. As a result, people may not always have been fully involved in decisions about how their care was planned or adjusted over time.

However, staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual needs and preferences and delivered care in a personalised and responsive way. Staff knew people well and adapted support in response to changes in mood, comfort and wellbeing. Care was flexible, and staff adjusted support when people were unwell, distressed or tired, including seeking advice from health professionals where appropriate.

Overall, although people received care which was responsive to their needs, systems were not always effective in ensuring people were consistently involved in planning and reviewing their care. This meant people were not always fully supported to influence decisions about their care in a structured and meaningful way.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Relatives told us people experienced coordinated care and were supported through transitions into the service. They described information being shared with them and felt staff worked with other professionals to help ensure people’s needs were met consistently.

Processes were in place to support people moving into the home, including assessments and care planning, which helped ensure care could be provided safely. Care records were used to guide staff and support the consistent delivery of care.

Feedback about people’s experiences of moving into the service showed some variation. More recent feedback was positive, with relatives describing supportive and reassuring transitions, including being given time to help their family member settle in. One relative described a more difficult experience during an earlier admission and felt they had not been fully involved in decisions at that time.

Overall, people generally experienced continuity of care, and staff worked with other services and professionals to support people’s needs. Systems were in place to support effective information sharing and coordinated care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Communication plans were in place to guide staff on how to communicate effectively with people. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s communication needs and adapted their approach accordingly during day-to-day interactions.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people, with staff speaking in a kind and respectful way. This supported people to express their views and be involved in decisions about their care.

Relatives told us they felt well informed about their family member’s care, including any changes in health or incidents. They described communication as open and honest, and in line with duty of candour principles. Relatives said they were kept updated and contacted promptly if there were any concerns. A small number of comments suggested communication was not always clear or timely; however, this was not widely reflected in feedback we received.

This meant people and their relatives received timely and appropriate information to support their involvement in care.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and their relatives were able to share feedback both formally and informally. Relatives told us they completed questionnaires and were invited to feedback meetings, although not all were able to attend. Feedback was also gathered during day-to-day contact with staff. People and relatives told us they would raise any concerns with the management team and felt able to do so.

While people and relatives told us they felt comfortable speaking with staff and leaders and most were confident their views would be listened to and acted upon, describing staff and leaders as “approachable and responsive”. We received a small number of comments from people that non-urgent requests were not always acted on at the first request, or that communication was not always fully satisfactory from 1 relative. These concerns were not widely reflected across other feedback.

Staff told us there were opportunities to share their views through meetings, handovers and supervision. While feedback from staff about being listened to was mixed, they confirmed processes were in place to support communication and engagement.

Overall, people and their relatives felt able to share their views and were generally listened to, and the provider had systems in place to support ongoing engagement and involvement.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service ensured people had equitable access to care, support and opportunities regardless of their background, diagnosis, communication needs or level of support required. Admissions were assessed to ensure the service could safely meet people’s needs.

Staff supported people to access the services they needed, including providing practical assistance and reassurance to help people attend appointments where required.

People were able to access healthcare professionals when needed, and staff took appropriate action to ensure continuity of care when people’s health needs changed. Records showed information from health appointments and hospital discharges was documented and used to review care and support needs.

This meant people were supported to access care and treatment when needed, and information from health services was used to support continuity of care.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who may be at risk of experiencing inequality and tailored care, support and treatment in response.

The service recognised and responded to people’s diverse needs to promote fair experiences and outcomes. Care plans included information about people’s cultural, religious and communication needs, which supported staff to provide individualised care.

The provider had equality, diversity and inclusion policies in place, which were reviewed in line with relevant legislation and supported staff to deliver inclusive care.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual needs and circumstances and adapted support accordingly. This helped reduce potential barriers and ensured people received care that met their needs.

This meant people experienced care and support that was responsive to their diverse needs and promoted equitable outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Care planning processes supported people to plan for their future care and wellbeing in a way that reflected what was important to them.

People were supported to plan for their future care, including at the end of their lives. End of life care plans were in place where appropriate and provided guidance for staff to deliver care that met people’s needs and preferences.

Staff had access to information to support people approaching the end of their lives, and anticipatory medicines were available where required to help ensure people remained comfortable and to reduce the risk of unnecessary pain or distress.

This demonstrated the service took a proactive approach to planning for people’s future care and supporting them throughout all stages of their care.