Lakeside Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff appeared to know people well and made time to have a quick chat when they could. People told us, "I think the staff are good at their jobs and most of them do care" and "The staff are always helpful." The relative of one person also said, "I find the staff team very caring and professional."

From our observations people were appropriately dressed and their hair and nails clean. One person told us, “There are two hairdressers who come in, so I regularly get my hair done."

During our visit, we saw staff knocking on doors before entering people’s rooms and asking permission before providing care. Where people required the use of equipment, staff explained what they were doing, offering reassurance whilst assisting people.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Levels of support varied. Some people were able to choose where and how they spent their time. One person told us, “They are helpful, but I like to do things for myself to stay independent." However, from our observations and feedback from people we found support was task focused, with staff having little opportunity to meet people’s social and emotional needs. The relative of one person said, "There aren’t many activities. There used to be. [Person] now sits in the chair doing nothing. It would be nice if they did things like they used to."

Staff interactions were polite and friendly. However, one staff member we spoke with referred to those people requiring assistance with meals as ‘feeders’. This language is disrespectful and undignified. This reported to and addressed by the registered manager.

People’s records reflected their individual wishes and preferences, including their cultural and religious needs. The relative of one person who had recently moved into the home said they had visited the home prior to a decision being made. They said, ‘It felt like they were interested in my [relative] and asked about what they use to do as a job, wanting to get to know them as a person.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing.

The aims of the organisation were outlined within the service user guide provided to people and their families. This detailed how people’s rights would be supported and promoted, enabling them to maintain their independence and follow a lifestyle of their choosing. However, this was not always followed in practice.

Not everyone had choice and control over their daily routine. We received a mixed response from people about the opportunities made available. Whilst some people were able to engage in activities others were not or chose not to take part. People told us, "The activities woman left. A carer was doing it, but she packed it in as well", "Not much to do here. Sometimes there are games and things though" and "There aren’t really many activities. We sit watching TV a lot." The relative of one person also commented, "There aren’t many activities. There used to be. [Person] now sits in the chair doing nothing. It would be nice if they did things like they used to."

Whilst others said they “Did their own thing” adding “I have my laptop and tablet which I use as an eBook reader. I read a lot" and “They [activities] aren’t my scene. I watch the telly and have the sports channel on during the football season."

People had access to necessary equipment to promote and enable them to maintain their independence. We saw people had access to walking aids to assist them. One person told us “"I use a wheelchair, and the staff are good and well trained at getting me in and out of it. I don't need hoisting."

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress.

We received a mixed response about there being enough staff to support people when they needed. Whilst most people spent time in the lounge areas others remained in their rooms. A high number of people required help with their mobility and care, which involved 2 staff members. Due to this, there were occasions when no staff were present in the communal areas and people were observed shouting out for assistance from staff.

We saw, and people told us, they had access to a call bell at night so they could ring for assistance, if able. However, people felt staffing arrangements at night were not sufficient to provide a timely response. People told us, “If I need the toilet I can wheel myself there but have to wait quite a while to be hoisted as it needs two staff. I do have a buzzer, but I try to not use it a lot as there are never many staff on at night” and “They are definitely short staffed. At night they only have three staff. It isn’t really enough as two can be needed to take one person to the toilet. It takes a lot longer to put people to bed.”

People’s relatives said they had confidence in the staff and were kept informed of any issues or changes in need. The relative of one person said, "Communication is really good, even in the night, they will ring me." Another relative added, "The staff are quite competent. [Person] was taken to AE yesterday as they had a fall. They [staff] phoned me four of five times to keep me up to date of everything. They've always been caring and keep me up to date."

We were told communication systems between the team had improved so information about people was effectively and promptly shared.

Improvements were being made to support and promote the well-being of staff in delivering people’s care.

Recent changes had taken place with the manager and support team. Feedback from staff was mixed about the morale within the team. Whilst some staff felt supported and improvements were being made under the new management, others were less positive. One staff told us, “Morale is the biggest issue.” Staff did feel able to speak with a senior manager of staff, where necessary.

Staff were provided with a handbook which included information about how the service supported staff in maintaining their well-being. This included ‘family friendly entitlements’ and flexible working. Information also outlined the rights of staff and how they would be supported and protected in relation to areas such as bullying and harassment.

We were told annual leave requests caused some difficulty due the number of staff requesting time off during Ramadan. A new annual leave ‘preference’ request form was being introduced to establish everybody’s preferences so that effective planning could be put in place. The registered manager spoke about how reasonable adjustments had been made for a member of staff with ADHD. Support was offered with shift changes to quieter times such as night shifts and reduced hours whilst building competence in their role.