The Laurels Residential 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 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 any relevant changes in people’s needs. Not all care plans contained sufficient detail to guide staff on how people’s specific health conditions should be managed such as diabetes, epilepsy and Parkinson's. Care plans were not consistently updated when people’s needs changed, which meant staff did not always have the most accurate or current information to provide appropriate support.
Staff were able to describe individuals’ likes, dislikes and preferred activities and used this knowledge to support meaningful engagement and choice. Staff feedback indicated they understood the importance of ensuring people were at the centre of their care and that their choices were respected. One member of staff told us, “I work more person-centred, I make it personal." Feedback from relatives was positive, comments included, "They (staff) really look after [name] well – and they will have a chat" and "Staff definitely know my relative well, they sit and chat and give colouring pencils and books, they show genuine concern."
 

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.

There was clear evidence of effective multidisciplinary working. External professionals were involved in people’s care planning, and their guidance was clearly documented within care plans. External professionals had no concerns about The Laurels.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider had clear policies and procedures in place to support the Accessible Information Standard and data protection requirements under GDPR. People’s communication needs were appropriately assessed and taken into account, ensuring information was provided in ways they could understand. Alternative formats, such as large print and audio, were available and offered where required to promote inclusion and enable people to be actively involved in decisions about their care. The provider ensured people had access to a ‘service user guide’ which explained the standards of care and facilities people could expect. Staff demonstrated an awareness of confidentiality and information governance and had received training in GDPR, supporting the safe and appropriate handling of personal information.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. Not all relatives felt informed about people’s care, and some were unclear about how to raise concerns or who to approach. Feedback from relatives about engagement was mixed, with some reporting they had not been asked to complete surveys. However, others told us their concerns had been responded to promptly when raised.

The provider had systems in place to gather feedback, including joint resident and relative meetings held twice a year. In addition, the manager completed daily walkarounds, which provided opportunities for people to share feedback informally. The manager was able to describe the complaints process, and improvement plans were in place to address identified concerns.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff took time to understand people’s individual characteristics and needs and worked collaboratively with people to ensure these were reflected in care planning. Systems were in place to support continuity of care, including access to emergency contacts and an on-call rota, ensuring support was available at all times. Referrals to specialist services, such as speech and language therapy (SALT), were made in a timely manner. Staff liaised regularly with healthcare professionals, including GPs, to seek advice and support when required.

The service was supported by regular input from a range of health and social care professionals, helping to ensure people received coordinated and joined-up care.

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’s care was tailored to their individual needs. Care plans identified where specific equipment or adjustments were required, helping to remove any potential barriers to receiving appropriate support. For example, the manager recognised that a newly admitted person did not have their equipment with them and personally went to the hospital to collect this. This ensured the person could receive the correct level of assistance. Staff received training in equality and diversity and inclusion to ensure everyone was treated fairly and without discrimination, regardless of age, sex, race, disability or religious belief. There were no reports from people or their relatives of discrimination or unequal treatment.

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 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 inspection, no one was receiving end of life care. However, all staff had completed training in end of life care to ensure they were prepared to support people when required.