Lakeview

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 we inspected one quality statement (person centred care). The rating has remained as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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.

The provider demonstrated how care had been person centred via case study examples. One person had regained their mobility, re-engaged with care and social activities and significantly reduced the number of incidents of behaviours of concern within 5 months. In less than 6 months, they had regained independence in most aspects of their life and returned to their home. The person said “When I first moved to Lakeview, I was in a bad place. I couldn’t walk or take care of myself – but now look at me! They’ve [staff] have helped me become independent again.”

People’s care records accurately reflected their preferences, choices and goals which showed how the care was tailored to the person.

Staff regularly reviewed care plans with the person which ensured they remained relevant and responsive to changing needs. A person told us, “I helped to write my care plan. I let them know if anything needs to change”

Staff demonstrated respect for people’s autonomy, choices and cultural or religious preferences. Care and support were flexible and tailored and considered people’s physical, emotional, social and psychological needs. A person told us their care plan had been adapted to consider their religious needs and felt supported by the provider to get involved with services run by the church.

Staff used appropriate methods to ensure people understood their care and were able to express their wishes. This included adapting communication for people with sensory impairments, cognitive difficulties, or language barriers.

The provider promoted independence, dignity and quality of life, supporting people to maintain control over their daily routines, activities and care decisions. People told us how they attended the local pub; they attend college or university programmes and were involved in activities they were interested in. We also saw evidence of how an event was arranged in which a person was supported by 2 carers to attend a rugby league game.

For people who had additional support needs, including in relation to nutrition, hydration or mobility, care was personalised to address these areas in line with evidence-based guidance. We observed foods being cut up to ensure it was the appropriate consistency for the person who was eating.

Most people felt the provider had enough activities relevant to them. A person said, “We have garden games, exercise, and singers. I am happy with the activities.” Another person said, “I go to music when the man with tattoo’s comes, and I make food and pancakes here.” However, some staff felt there could be more excursions available for people to attend.

People’s feedback was sought, listened to, and used to improve care practices. Recent to the inspection, the food menu had changed because of people’s feedback.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.