Lenthall House

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 75 (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 and management team made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People had person centred care plans, which included information as to people’s preferences, physical, mental, emotional and social needs. This enabled staff to support and care for people in a way that was important to them, valuing and respecting their wishes. A relative spoke of how their family member’s bedroom had been personalised to meet their individual needs, whilst reflecting their hobbies and interests.

The manager advised internal reviews were undertaken monthly for each person, along with an annual review. The monthly reviews were facilitated by the ‘resident of the day’ approach, which identified 2 people each day, making sure that care plans were updated to provide an accurate reflection of people’s current need, preferences and wellbeing. A relative told us, “I have done a care plan review for [family member] several times.” Multi-disciplinary visits and outcomes were recorded and included within the care records, ensuring professional input was reflected to support collaborative working.

The manager informed us they were committed to involving both the person and their families in care planning and decisions, and that reviews were in response to changes in need. For those people who lacked capacity, the management team worked with the person’s Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) to ensure decisions were made in people’s best interest. A relative told us, “I have an LPA., and copies have been furnished to the home for their files, and records were updated accordingly. I have done a care plan review for [person] several times.”

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.

People’s care and support was well documented and shared effectively within the service and with healthcare professionals. Necessary and timely referrals were made to other agencies where required. The registered manager and staff worked in partnership with healthcare professionals and information had been updated in people’s care plans.

The manager informed us they had reintroduced the key worker system, where each person was assigned a dedicated member of staff (key worker) with responsibility for coordinating their care. Key workers acted as a point of contact for families, ensuring clear and consistent flow of information.

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

The provider was aware of the Accessible Information Standard, and, if required, was able to provide information in large print, easy read of audio versions. Equipment was used to support communication, for example the use of electronic devices to support effective communication for people who experienced difficulties, including hearing and verbal communication.

The manager told us they used pictured cards, or forms of sign language including Makaton to support effective communication. A relative told us, “My [person] is very hard of hearing but responds well to the carers touch and smiling faces.”

People’s care and support was documented and shared effectively within the service and with healthcare professionals. Necessary and timely referrals were made to other agencies where required. The manager and staff worked in partnership with healthcare professionals and information had been updated in people’s care plans.

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 told us the manager and staff were approachable should they wish to raise a concern. Relatives equally felt confident to raise a concern. A relative told us, “I have never felt the need to complain, but I would feel comfortable speaking with the manager or deputy manager if I needed to.” A second relative said, “I can’t imagine having a complaint, but I would have no hesitation in talking to the manager, or anyone else there.”

The provider had a complaint policy and procedure. Records showed where concerns had been raised, these had been investigated and responded to. Duty of Candour requirements were met, with letters of apology being sent where appropriate when something went wrong during care.

The provider had quality assurance procedures which provided opportunities for people’s relatives to share their experience of the service by completing feedback questionnaires. The outcome of the survey carried out in April 2025 was in the main positive, with relatives expressing satisfaction with the care provided. An area for improvement noted by a relative related to staffing levels, for which the manager had provided an individual response.

Relatives meetings were held. Minutes of the most recent meeting showed the manager had provided an update of actions taken since the previous meeting. The points raised by relatives were recorded, which included staffing, meals, décor and the garden. The manager’s response was documented, which included actions being taken to continually improve.

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

The environment was spacious and free from hazards to support people with mobility needs. A choice of communal rooms meant people could choose between sitting in a quiet lounge or choosing a larger lounge if they chose to spend time with more people.

People were supported to attend health appointments. A person told us, “The GP regularly visits.” Relatives confirmed their family members had accessed a range of services. A relative told us, “Following a fall, [person] was assessed by an Occupational Therapist. We discussed which frame would be best for them.” A second relative said, “My [person] needed the dentist recently and one of the carers was organised to take them. The GP and district nurse visit frequently, as does an optician and chiropodist.”

The provider operated an on-call system, which meant a member of the management team could be contacted by staff for support and guidance in the event of an emergency, or where they had concerns.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider had systems and processes that monitored people’s care and support needs, including health conditions. People’s care plans and records confirmed how people’s care and support was provided, monitored and reviewed.

The manager understood people with specific needs, including dementia or a learning disability, may experience difficulties in being heard and understood when conveying information about their health and wellbeing. To support this, people’s relatives and staff supported them to attend appointments to ensure their views were heard. A relative told us, “When I couldn’t make it, to take [person] for a test, staff quickly offered to have a carer go with them, and they stayed the whole time as they have [specific health needs]. I was so grateful they weren’t on their own.”

Managers and staff advocated on behalf of people to ensure they had access to external services and agencies. A relative told us, “During a recent discussion with the manager, we shared with them that [person] had previously responded really well from attending a day centre. The manager did some research and have now arranged for them to attend a drama group, which they thrilled about.”

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.

People had their advanced wishes regarding receiving treatment if their health deteriorated recorded, and in some instances, this included information as to people’s funeral arrangements. Relatives told us they had been involved in planning for the future, including end of life care. A relative told us, “They are aware that [person] has a DNACPR (a document which records people’s advanced wishes should they stop breathing). We have had the final wishes discussion and they know no hospital trips for [person].

Staff had received training on end of life care. Staff told us they made sure people were comfortable and respected their wishes when providing end of life care. Staff told us they involved the person’s family, and worked with district nurses who administered end of life medicines, where these had been prescribed.