Lincoln Road

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 changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 that effective systems were in place to ensure people were at the centre of their care and treatment.

Care plans and risk assessment in place did not always provide enough individual information about people. However, staff were able to tell us about the support people needed and their individual likes, dislikes and preferences. This meant people may be at risk of not receiving person centred care if temporary or new staff who did not know them well were responsible for supporting them.

Further improvements were needed to ensure all care that was delivered was tailored for each person. For example, the scheme manager talked us through the transition programme that was in place when people started using the service. However, they confirmed there were no individual transition plans in place for people, which meant the care delivered may not be person centred.

People and relatives felt involved with their care, however reviews were not always recorded to show how people had been involved and how their feedback had been considered.

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.

As care plans and risk assessments were not always in place or contained sufficient details, we could not be assured that people received consistent care. There was a system in place to review care, however as it did not consider all relevant incidents, safeguarding events and changes we could not be assured it was effective.

However, people were supported by a consistent staff team who knew people well. Relatives and people raised no concerns to us.

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

Information was provided to people in a format they could understand when needed. Care plans reflected the levels of support, the ways people chose to communicate and how information should be made available to them. Some care records contained conflicting information about how people communicated, however staff were aware of people’s needs.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The scheme manager told us they had sent out surveys to people and relatives and had received no responses. They confirmed there had been no learning from this and had not tried to collate feedback in different or more innovative ways. We requested information to show feedback had been requested and collated since our last inspection in 2019; however, no information was provided to us.

There were no records or information to show how all people and families were currently involved with their reviews of care. In some instances, records confirmed people were part of this however for most people it was unclear. There were no records to show meetings for people and relatives who used the service were taking place.

However, people and relatives told us they felt involved with their care and knew how to raise concerns and were confident their concerns would be listened to. A relative said, “There could be something silly like his pyjama top is on in the day, but I can phone them and they'll say 'Sorry!', and then it's resolved. I just phone and speak to them.”

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

People raised no concerns with the support they received and had access to other health professionals when needed. The provider told us they worked alongside external agencies, including social workers and nurse specialists who they could engage with if needed.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

As people’s care was not always tailored to be person centred or delivered in line with the right support, right care, and right culture guidance, we could not be assured people always received equitable experiences.

However, there were systems in place to consider and act on people’s experiences in care, if needed. The management team were aware of inequalities people receiving support may face and where they could get support with this

People were not always 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.

The management team told us there was no one who was currently being supported with end-of-life care. They confirmed they did not discuss this with people and families. Care records contained no evidence of goal setting or planning for important life changes, they told us they did not get involved with this aspect of people’s lives.