Lakeside 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 68 (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 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’s care and support was planned in a way that reflected their individual preferences. Care plans contained detailed person-centred information, including people's life histories, cultural and religious needs, and their likes and dislikes.

Risk assessments had been reviewed. However, care plans had not always been updated in line with risk assessments, or information was not recorded accurately to evidence people’s individual needs had been met. Some information within care records was at times conflicting between documents. This meant they did not always fully identify the care people needed to minimise known risks and deliver person centred care.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Care was not consistently well coordinated or delivered consistently. There were examples of integration with external professionals, such as regular GP visits. Healthcare professionals we contacted did not provide any feedback around their working relationship with the service or outcomes for people.

However, some care records contained contradictory or incomplete information, particularly around repositioning, Speech and Language Therapist (SALT) direction, pressure ulcer risk management fluid monitoring and bowel monitoring, which could present risk and affect continuity of care.

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

Information about the service and upcoming events was displayed on notice boards in communal areas. There was a monthly newsletter produced for people and their relatives. No concerns were raised with us by people or their relatives about the communication within the service. One told us, “They discussed care issues with me. All of the staff are very flexible and skilled to meet her needs.” A person living at the service said, “My son visits, he is kept up to date with things.”

The registered manager understood their duties under the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and made sure alternative communication formats were available, when required. They told us nobody currently needed additional support.

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.

There was no formal structure to gather and record feedback from the people living at the service, but no concerns were raised with us about this. There was no regular process to undertake relative and resident meetings. Whilst no concerns were raised, a formal process to regularly explore people’s views on activity provision may have identified the small number of people within the service who told us they felt bored and isolated at times.

There was a complaints policy and procedure for people and their relatives to use. The service management told us no formal complaints that required investigation in line with the published policy had been made for some time. People told us where they had raised minor concerns the matter was resolved promptly

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

We saw records of involvement from healthcare professionals, such as GPs, within people’s care records. The feedback we received from people, relatives and healthcare professionals provided assurance people were supported to access specialist healthcare and support in a timely way. One person we spoke with said, “I’ve only seen the doctor once this year as they manage my heart problems with tablets. A carer from the home went with me to the hospital for an eye appointment.” Another person said, “I’m sure they’d get a doctor if you needed one. You can ask to see the doctor on her rounds.”

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.

Feedback from people and relatives was mainly positive, describing kind and compassionate care. Information about people’s communication needs, cultural preferences, health conditions and any other factors that could increase the risk of inequality was gathered through initial assessments and getting to know and understand people after they moved into the service.

The activities co-ordinator told us there was a focus on creating varied events for all people. They said, “So we do the group activities, but we have a list and we ensure we see everybody every week and if people are in need we will go and chat to them or read to them or do their nails and play games.”

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.

At the time of our assessment nobody was receiving end of life care. Where required, staff supported people to remain at the service at the end of their lives if this was their choice. The service could work closely with healthcare professionals to make sure they planned for and met people’s needs at the end of their lives.