The Lakes Care Centre

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

People’s individual needs and preferences were not always recognised and met in a timely manner. Staff did not always have the right skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not always receive person- centred care. Staff followed regimental routines with little consideration to people’s individual routines and likes. One person told us," I look around and overall, everything is alright, but I have to ask days in advance if I want anything different or altering. I have showers but not as much as I would like.” One relative told us,"My Mum was getting distressed when children were visiting, I know people like children, but my Mum was getting distressed. I had to ask few times for staff to take her back to her room and when I visited, she was again in the conservatory.” People’s care plans were not person-centred and contained generic information regarding people’s needs and how staff support them. Care notes made by staff were low on detail and were based on tasks to be carried out.

Staff followed set routine throughout the day with very little consideration regarding people’s individual likes and dislikes. One staff member told us," By 10:00am everybody is down and had their breakfast. Between 1:00pm and 2:00pm we take people to the bathroom.”

Staff did not always provide person-centred care to people. For example we observed one staff member supporting two people during the lunch time at the same time. People’s individual needs were not always met. For example, people who required assisting in changing their position in bed were not always supported at the times they needed it.

There was evidence of working with others for example the district nurses (DNs) and GP practice. We haven’t received much feedback from the other professionals regarding working with the provider. However received feedback was positive .

People received care from other services when they needed them. Staff told us the GP from the local GP practice visited weekly and DNs visits daily. One of the visiting DNs told us,"Staff alerts us in people need help or their needs change.”

We haven’t received much feedback in this area from partners, however the received feedback was positive. One professional told us:,"Staff call when they need us and they escalate concerns appropriately.”

There were processes in place to support joint work with professionals and stakeholders. However, these had not always been effective. For example guidance from professionals was not always transferred to people’s care plans- we saw an example when advised frequency of person’s repositioning was not followed.

People’s individual needs to have information in an accessible way were not identified. People’s care plan contained limited information regarding people’s communication needs and ways of meeting those needs.

Staff did not always understand people’s communication needs. Staff had some understanding of the Accessible Information Standard. One staff member told us:,"Sometimes it is difficult because of people’s behaviour and I could do with more training.”

There were processes in place in regarding providing people with information that was tailored to their needs. However, these had not been always utilised effectively. For example people’s care plans did not always provide detailed information regarding people’s communication needs and how to meet those needs.

People and their families knew who to speak to in order to raise concerns and to provide feedback. One person told us," I’ve no complaints or concerns, if you need help, they will help you.” One family member told us,"We have raised concerns, but they have addressed them.” Another relative told us:” We have had relatives meetings with the home, they listen but there have been issues.”

The provider showed us evidence of people’s surveys completed to gather people’s views. There were regular residents and family meetings taking place. The provider used a “digital receptionist” with an electronic feedback monitor which enabled people and visitors to provide quick feedback. The provider told us they contact ed families to discuss feedback if this was negative.

There were processes and procedures in place to support gathering people’s feedback. However not all of the processes were effective. For example, there was no evidence that gathered feedback was analysed and that the findings were used to improve outcomes for people or the quality of delivered care to people.

People were supported to access services when needed. The home is visited weekly by the GP and the DNs visited daily. One relative told us,"I think my Mum’s needs are met.”

Staff supported and enabled people to access services when required. People received weekly visits from the GP and the DNs visited daily. One staff member told us:” We will ask the DNs to come out if somebody needs a dressing changing or they need an injection for example for their diabetes.”

We did not receive much feedback in this area from partner agencies. However, received feedback was positive.

There were processes and procedures in place to support people’s care and treatment when they needed it. This included enabling people access to the services they needed such as the access to GP or support from District Nurses.

People were unable to tell us how their needs and preferences were used to support them to access the services they needed and pursue interests relevant to them.

The Provider told us about seeking people’s feedback regarding their care and support and there was some evidence of this. For example we saw evidence of the residents and families meetings taking place and short people’s surveys completed.

There were processes in place to support people to express their views and gather feedback about their care. However not all of the processes were effective. There was no evidence of how the gathered feedback was used to improve the quality of care delivered to people.

People were not always supported to make informed decisions about their care and plan for the future. People’s care plans did not always contain information in regarding people’s future wishes for example in relation to care and support at the end of life.

Staff had little understanding about people’s future wishes and needs. There was very little information available to staff to enable them to support people in planning for their future or meeting their needs at the end of life.

People had end of life care plans in place but these were task based and made no reference to preferences and the support people wanted. There was no evidence people were actively supported to make plans for their future. There were Do Not Actively Resuscitate (DNAR) forms in place for people and the service worked with the GP.