The Limes Retirement 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

At our last assessment the service was in breach of person centred care. At this assessment the service was no longer in breach of regulation.

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 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.

Since our last assessment, improvements had been made in people’s care plans. These included information about people’s specific and diverse needs and preferences. The care plans were regularly reviewed and any changes to people’s needs or preferences were documented to ensure the care plans reflected people’s current needs. People told us they felt their needs were met and they were well cared for. One person said, “Staff are fairly good, I cannot go to bed alone, they help me, [staff are] marvellous to me, and do everything I ask.” Another person commented, “I am looked after well.”

People had access to social activity which reduced the risks of boredom and isolation. This was confirmed by relatives. A person told us, “Anything going on I join in if I want to, I like to read and watch television, I like sitting here in my little corner [in the lounge].” A relative said, “There is always something going on, yesterday they had music exercise.” Another relative told us, “The accommodation does suit [family member], it is lovely [family member] has got [their] own space but can join in the lounge when they have singers and exercises.”

There was no dedicated activity staff member, the registered manager told us there was one employed, but they had left and plans were in place to employ a new one. However, all staff were required to provide social engagement. During our visits, we saw this happening, people had a sing song playing musical instruments and a staff member sat with people doing colouring. A staff member told us how people participated in folding napkins and tablecloths and a person led the exercise sessions with a visiting professional. Photographs showed people enjoying activities, such as planting seeds, and playing games.

Daily notes varied in detail relating to how social engagement and people’s wellbeing was documented. The registered manager told us this would be addressed.

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 plans included information about their diverse needs and guidance for staff in how they were met. Some people living in the service were living with dementia, we saw there were accessible dementia friendly items in the shared area people could use to stimulate their senses. This included a dementia board with items such as bolts, and ‘fiddle’ objects.

We saw photographs of people participating in activities provided by visiting services from the community, including musical entertainers and animals such as reptiles and owls. A person told us how they particularly enjoyed seeing the birds.

The service worked in partnership with the local GP surgery, which ensured people received a consistent service which met their needs.

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

People’s care plans included information about how they communicated and guidance for staff in how to communicate effectively.

The registered manager told us documentation could be made available in accessible formats where required, such as larger print and easy read. The menu was provided in text and picture format to support people’s decisions.

The service’s welcome pack included information about the service and what people could expect to receive. This was provided to all people using the service.

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 a complaints procedure in place, which was made available to people using the service and their representatives.

People told us they would have no hesitation speaking with the registered manager or staff if they were unhappy. A person said, “Any concerns I go to the manager and [they] would listen.” Relatives told us the registered manager was accessible and acted on any concerns raised, however, they had not needed to raise a formal complaint.

The registered manager told us there had been no formal complaints received in the last 12 months. Where any concerns and complaints were received these were addressed, and the system for learning lessons would be used. There was a duty of candour policy in place, and this was understood by the registered manager.

Satisfaction surveys were completed by relatives and people, and a ‘you said, we did’ notice was posted in the service which showed what actions had been taken as a result of people’s comments.

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

The service was accessible for people using the service. Accessible signs in text and picture format were posted around the service to assist people to independently navigate, such as to the toilet or their bedroom.

People told us they had access to external professionals where needed, such as the GP, opticians and chiropodist. This was confirmed by relatives, health professionals and records. The registered manager told us they continued to seek out a dentist for people to use, however, should people require to see a dentist they worked with relatives to find an appropriate one for the individual.

People’s spiritual needs and preferences for worship were documented. The registered manager told us visitors to the service from two different religious places of worship attended the service to support people’s spiritual needs if they chose to. We saw photographs where people had participated in activities relating to traditional festivals and national days, including Easter, Mother’s Day, Chinese New Year and national toast day.

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.

People and relatives told us they felt they were listened to by the registered manager and staff and their choices were acted on.

Staff had received training in equality and diversity, as well as training relating to people’s specific needs including positive behaviour support, dementia and mental health. Discussions with staff demonstrated they understood people’s needs and how they were met to reduce the risks of people not having their diverse needs met. Actions had been taken to ensure people, for example those living with dementia, were provided with an accessible environment, such as signage and alternative coloured eating and drinking equipment.

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, where they had chosen to, had made decisions about life changes and end of life care, and this was documented. This included decisions such as where they chose to be cared for if they became unwell and if they wished to be resuscitated. In addition, people had a recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment (RESPECT) in place, which had been completed by external health professionals, with the person and their relatives, where appropriate. This ensured people’s decisions were documented and reduced the risks of their choices not being met.

An external health professional told us about the support being provided to people with their end of life care, which included anticipatory medicines, should these be required. This was confirmed by the registered manager.

We saw thank you cards from people’s relatives, some of which commented on the end of life care provided. A person’s relative told us how much they had appreciated the care provided to their family member at the end of their life in the service. They advised they had been consulted about where the person spent the last days of their life. The relative explained how the environment was calm and peaceful and how the relatives had been supported during this time, including the provision of food and drinks to allow them to spend time with their family member.