You are here

Lavender Court Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 3 January 2020

About the service

Lavender Court Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care to 36 people, some of whom are living with dementia. People are primarily aged over 65 years. At the time of the inspection five people lived at the service. The home was on two floors with a range of communal areas. These included dining spaces and lounges.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Whilst people seemed happy with the care they received, they were not always protected from the risk of harm. Appropriate risk assessment procedures were not in place so any risks to people were not always minimised. The registered provider had not consistently taken suitable action in a timely manner.

Staff were not always recruited appropriately. For example suitable references were not always obtained when new staff had previously worked in a caring capacity.

Staffing levels were not satisfactory. Staffing levels, during the day on the days of the inspection were stretched, and depended on managerial staff assisting care staff to deliver adequate support to people. However we observed people receiving prompt support from care staff when required.

Care planning systems were not satisfactory. Care plans did not always accurately outline people’s needs, and were not being accurately reviewed when people’s needs changed.

Staff induction procedures were not satisfactory. For example there was not suitable information to show staff had received a comprehensive induction, or supervisory staff had provided comprehensive information to assist new staff to carry out their roles. There were gaps in the delivery of training staff had received. This meant staff employed had not received all training which was legally required and to assist them to carry out their roles. There was no record staff had received any one to one supervision with a senior member of staff.

The service had not been managed effectively which had led to the identified failings. The manager did not have sufficient time to carry out their managerial duties. However the current manager had only been in post for a short period. The manager and the nominated individual were aware of some of the shortcomings highlighted and said they were working to make suitable changes. Staff and the majority of people had confidence in the management of the service.

It is too early to conclude if management were able to demonstrate the service learned from mistakes to minimise them happening again.

The provider had inadequate systems to monitor service delivery and bring about improvement when necessary.

Some external professionals currently did not have confidence the registered provider was working well with them to provide good quality care.

The service had suitable safeguarding systems in place, and staff had received training about recognising abuse.

The medicines system was well organised and staff received suitable training. People received their medicines on time.

The building was clean, and there were appropriate procedures to ensure any infection control risks were minimised.

The service had suitable assessment systems to assist the registered provider to check they could meet people’s wishes and needs before admission was arranged.

People received enough to eat and drink. Some people said the quality of meals was variable. People received some choice about the meals they received.

People received care and support in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. Policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received support from external health professionals and were encouraged to live healthier lives.

People said they received support from staff which was caring and respectful. Care promoted people’s dignity and independence. People were involved in decisions about their care.

People had the opportunity to participate in some activities and to spend time with the wider community.

People felt confi

Inspection areas



Updated 3 January 2020

The service was not safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 January 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below



Updated 3 January 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 January 2020

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 January 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.