Lakeside 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 64 (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.

Records about people included lots of person-centred information and comprehensive care plans reflecting people’s individual needs, wishes and preferences. Records were kept under review reflecting people’s changing needs. On some records family members had also been involved and consulted with. One person’s relative said, “[Staff member] discussed the care plan when [person] first came in, so I do know that they have one."

We observed positive interactions between people, their relatives, and staff. Staff were polite, friendly, and appeared to have a good understanding of people’s needs and their likes and dislikes.

Staff told us they had received training in person centred care and dementia awareness as part of the programme of e-learning. However, records showed only 18 of the 31 staff had completed these courses.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff told us they worked closely with health care teams, people, and their families so that people received care and support that met their individual needs.

Further recruitment was taking place to help provide better continuity in care. 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, “They have had quite a few agency staff recently, [person] has said they are not as helpful as the permanent staff. A handful of staff have been there for a long time, and [person] really gets on with them."

Staff said they were kept informed when people’s needs had changed through daily handovers and updates provided on the electronic records. Further training was to be provided on the new electronic care planning system, to help maintain accurate and complete records about people’s current and changing needs.

The service continued to be monitored and reviewed by the local authority in line with their commissioning arrangements.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff were aware of people's communication needs and how to support them. However, there was little in place in relation to accessible information standards, to show people had access to information about their care and support in a way they could understand.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

We were told opportunities were made available for people and their relatives to feedback about their experiences or any concerns they may have. This included occasional resident meetings. Information about how people can complain was also detailed within the service user guide which was distributed to people.

People and their relatives told us they felt able to raise any issues or concerns. Records showed any issues raised were recorded and responded to. Comments received included, “If I'm not happy with something I will tell them. I don't complain about nothing. I've no complaints here though, none at all" and "If I have a problem, I know that they will listen to it."

However not everyone knew who the manager was. We were told, "I don't really know the new manager. The staff here are too busy to talk. Too much to do and not enough time" and "Very good communication. Not met the new manager properly but she comes across as pleasant."

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

People were supported to access a range of services to help maintain their health and well-being. Staff liaised with people’s GP or the visiting community nurses if there were concerns in people’s health needs. However, care plans did not always clearly demonstrate how people’s healthcare needs were to be met.

The service had a contingency plan in place in the event of an emergency. Managers were available on-call to offer additional advice and support outside of ‘office hours’.

Relevant aids and adaptations were in place to aid people’s safety and mobility around the home. The main entrance provided level access for wheelchairs and a passenger lift serviced the first floor.

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.

At present the service did not have a designated activity worker. There were little opportunities provided for people within the home and local and wider community.

The family of one person had made private arrangements for their relative to be visited by an external agency, providing one to one social support. The agency worker told us they had been visiting the person several times a week for some time and knew them well. They were seen reminiscing about family and events.

People’s rights to family life were encouraged and respected. There was an open visiting policy, which was confirmed by people’s relatives. We were told, “They are quite accommodating to my visitors here."

Training in equality and diversity was available however had not been completed by all staff. This training helps develop staff knowledge and understanding in these areas.

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 homes service user guide described Lakeside as being at the ‘forefront in providing end of life care’. However, a review of records showed not all staff had received training in this area. Care records, such as advanced care plans, plans for the last weeks of life including the involvement of family, where appropriate, were not in place outlining peoples wishes.

A review of records did show staff had sought advice and support from the hospice team where there had been changes in the health and wellbeing of one person. This had ensured appropriate treatment was received, and the person was kept comfortable.