We carried out a review of the data available to us about Lucton House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Lucton House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Visitors to the home undertook screening questions and had their temperatures taken on arrival. When the home was open to visitors, people were supported to have window visits and garden visits when the weather was more favourable. An intercom was used for window visits so the window could remain closed but people were still able to hear and speak with their relatives.
Signage was used to tell staff which zone they were entering and the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) required for that zone. Dedicated areas were used for putting on and taking off PPE and staff members were allocated their own bathroom. There was a limited number of staff allowed in the foyer and staff break out areas at any one time and notices on doors reinforced this expectation.
People living at Lucton House had their own self contained apartment equipped with lounge, small kitchen, en suite bathroom and bedroom meaning that during periods of isolation and closure of communal areas, people's living spaces still afforded them space and home comforts. Handheld electronic devices were used to record people's daily care and which included happy or sad faces so people's wellbeing, particularly during isolation, could be logged and monitored.
Staff spent time with people to keep them occupied. This included life stories, having a dance to their favourite music, reminding them when their favourite television programme was on or just sitting and talking.
To ensure people were eating and drinking enough during periods of isolation and where communal dining areas were closed, charts to monitor people's nutritional intake were implemented and extra signage was displayed on people's doors.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Lucton House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The care home accommodates 51 older people in one adapted building. There were 47 people living at the home at the time of our inspection. People have their own separate ‘flats’ which contain a lounge area, their bedroom and ensuite facilities.
Since our last inspection, a new manager had joined the service and they had registered in September 2018. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People and relatives felt the service was safe. People were supported to have their risks managed and incidents at the home were learnt from to improve people’s safety. Staffing levels had increased since our last inspection and people felt staffing levels were safe. Safe recruitment processes had been followed. Systems were in place to ensure the health and safety of the home.
People received effective support from staff which met their needs. Staff told us they felt supported and staff training was ongoing. People were supported to make their own choices. The design and décor of the home was developed around people’s preferences and needs. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink.
People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring. Our observations reflected this and we saw people were involved in decisions and discussions about their care. Staff ensured they promoted people’s privacy, dignity and independence.
People’s needs were reviewed and responded to with input from healthcare professionals. People spent their time as they wished and enjoyed some group activities. People and relatives told us they knew how to complain but had not needed to do so. Systems were in place to ensure complaints would lead to improvements at the home.
Further improvements were required, and underway, to ensure people’s needs and preferences were always known and responded to, including access to activities at the home.
There was a new manager who had registered after our inspection. People spoke positively about the service and recent developments. Systems and processes were in place to assess, monitor and continuously improve the quality and safety of the service.
Lucton House provides accommodation with care and support for up to 51 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 49 people living at the home. This included four people who were staying at the home on a short-term, respite stay. There was a registered manager who was present during our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People we spoke with told us that they felt safe at Lucton House. All staff told us they would raise safeguarding concerns internally to help protect people living at the home. Some staff required refresher training to help ensure staff had a consistent understanding of how to identify and report types of abuse that people could experience.
Checks were in place to promote the safety of the home and some measures were in place to help some people safely manage their risks. Risk assessments were not always robust to support this practice and ensure all staff always had the information they needed about people’s risks and needs. People’s medicines were managed safely and recent improvements had been made in this area. Record keeping around this support was not always robust for example, to reflect the support people received to apply creams.
We received mixed feedback as to whether there were always enough staff to help meet all people’s needs. Staff were not always available to help assure people and spend time with them. Recruitment checks had been safely conducted to reduce the risk of people being supported by staff who were unsuitable.
People’s personal care needs were often met however staff did not always demonstrate a full understanding of people’s needs associated with specific conditions, including people living with dementia. Staff training had not been provided in some areas relating to people’s needs to help address this. Staff told us they felt supported in their roles.
People told us they were supported to make their own choices and decisions and staff showed some awareness of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People were supported to access additional healthcare and support when they were unwell and to help them maintain their health.
People were often treated with care and respect by staff and supported to maintain positive relationships and to express their views. Some people’s feedback and our observations reflected that this was not always a consistent experience for all people. People and relatives told us that people’s privacy and independence was promoted.
Care planning had not ensured that all people’s needs were considered and met. We found inconsistent experiences around some people’s access to activities of interest and to support in line with their needs and wishes. People and their relatives told us they felt able to make complaints although we were informed that none had been made.
People, visitors and relatives spoke positively about the home. Ongoing developments were in place which would help to build on some of these positive experiences. There was a registered manager in place who received support through oversight and feedback from the registered provider.
Systems and processes were not always robust to ensure all people’s needs and wishes were always recognised and met through effective care planning. Shortfalls in some people’s experiences of the home and some record keeping issues were not always identified and addressed effectively through quality assurance processes. The Commission had not always been made aware of notifiable incidents as required by law.
The inspection identified three breaches of regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.