Lilleybrook 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 75 (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.

Despite the concerns we saw in relation to governance and recording, we also saw some examples of good practice in relation to person-centred care. For example, some records that we sampled contained extensive person-centred detail, including people’s life history, cultural and religious preferences. We saw that the registered manager was working towards ensuring that all records contained the same level of detail.

Most people and their representatives told us staff treated them with respect and kindness and took a person centred approach to their day to day care. One person said, “The staff are thorough and they never forget about me. They are very good and caring with [people] and treating them as individuals.”

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives regarding the food at the home. We shared this feedback with the chef who told us there had been a recent meeting to remind staff that people should always be offered alternatives and additional choice. One person, who was a vegetarian, told us they had their own menu which had been adapted to meet their individual needs and preferences.

Staff supported people to engage in meaningful activities and routines. People spoke of an improved activity schedule which now reflected their individual needs and preferences, allowing choice and autonomy.

The provider took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We identified concerns in relation to the absence of a clear and consistent record. Information was not always accurately reflected in people’s care records, creating potential risks. For example, we saw conflicting and missing information in relation to people with modified diets and people who required blood glucose monitoring. Despite this, we saw no evidence of impact and we saw the provider engaged with external professionals, with examples of specialist advice being sought.

Most relatives told us they received good communication from the staff team, which supported continuity. One relative said, “I feel confident that I can speak freely and my [relative] will get the best care."

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

People’s communication needs were assessed and described in their care plans. This gave staff information about any difficulties people had with their hearing or speech and how best to communicate with them.

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment, or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers. We saw the registered manager had identified in the service improvement plan that menus were not fully accessible for people, and so they took action to improve this and displayed the information on a large board in a large font.

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.

The provider had a complaints, suggestions and compliments policy in place to ensure that individual complaints were recorded and responded to. There were also other ways for people to share feedback about the service. The registered manager said, “We do surveys for [residents]…and residents meetings. I will sit in on the meetings. Normally myself and the cook will go around…If anything comes up then I will sit down and look at it. I always think about how we can be better.”

People told us they felt comfortable to approach staff and leaders if they had any concerns. One person said, “I will call staff if I need to. I feel well supported.”

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

A GP from the local practice visited the home and had regular contact, ensuring people received prompt access to care, treatment, and support. The management team upheld people’s right to equal access to health and care services, regardless of their background.

The building had been designed to ensure accessibility. Signage was displayed throughout the home to help people and their visitors to find their way around.

People’s care needs were assessed before they moved into the service, so any adaptations or equipment required for their care were in place from the start.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff were aware of people’s individual needs, including any protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Care plans included information about people’s interests and what was important to them. Staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people.

People were 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.

Care plans contained information about people’s wishes, preferences and future decisions. Whilst some care plans required more detailed information, the registered manager was aware of this, and had discussed improvements with team leaders and nursing staff at a recent governance meeting prior to our assessment. Staff were working towards ensuring that, beyond the basic information, all care plans contained a detailed overview of people’s end of life care, spiritual wishes, and any funeral arrangements. The registered manager told us that people were supported to consider and communicate what mattered to them, and these preferences were respected and documented.

The service worked with relevant professionals to ensure people received appropriate support at the right time. We received positive feedback from a palliative care professional about how staff respond promptly to changes in people’s condition at the end of their lives. They told us, “Advice is always actioned and they do not hesitate to call us both in and out of hours if they have any palliative care concerns. The nursing and care staff always appear to be kind and caring, and this feedback often comes from [people] who say the same.”