Archived: Lucas Court Nursing Home

Below is a summary of what we found. The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

We found that people's needs had been appropriately assessed before they were admitted to Lucas Court. After admission to the home we saw that their needs were regularly reassessed to ensure they received safe care. This meant that staff had the information they needed to minimise identified risks to people's safety and welfare.

We saw that people were cared for in an environment that was clean and hygienic. We found that the equipment in place for staff to use was appropriately serviced. This meant that people were cared for in a safe, well maintained environment.

There were sufficient numbers of experienced and competent staff on duty to safely meet people's personal and healthcare needs. We saw that staff had been appropriately trained and received the managerial support they needed to do their job. Staff had received training in the protection of vulnerable adults and the staff that we spoke with knew how to report concerns. We saw evidence that incidents or accidents had been appropriately reported to the Local Authority and the Care Quality Commission (CQC). This meant that people were protected from the risk of neglect or unsafe care.

Suitable arrangements were in place to respond to emergencies, with the manager or other senior staff always being available 'on call' out of office hours to support staff to manage the situation safely and in a timely way.

Is the service effective?

Staff had received the information, training and managerial support they needed to do their job effectively. There were arrangements in place that ensured staff had the most up-to-date information about people's needs. This included 'handovers' of pertinent information when staff arrived for duty. The five staff we spoke with were able to tell us about people's individual needs and how they delivered their care. This meant that because staff had a good knowledge of each person's care needs and preferences they were able to provide effective care.

Is the service caring?

One person we spoke with said, "The nurses and carers are always cheerful. I think they do a marvellous job.' Seven other people we spoke with individually, including a visitor, made similar positive comments about the staff.

We also saw that as staff went about their duties and interacted with people they were friendly and helpful. We heard staff addressing people by their preferred name. We also heard them encourage people to do things for themselves but they made sure people were safe and provided them with timely assistance whenever that was appropriate. People were offered support at a level which encouraged independence and ensured their individual needs were met.

We saw that when staff assisted people with personal care such as toileting or bathing they made sure doors were closed to protect people's dignity and privacy. We found that people were encouraged to spend private time with their visitors as they chose, either in a quiet lounge area or in the privacy of their room.

Is the service responsive to people's needs?

We saw that there was enough staff on duty to meet people's nursing and personal care needs. This was also confirmed by the staff and people in residence we spoke with. When we asked people about their care they said they never had to wait for long if they needed assistance. We heard that call bells were always answered in a timely way, with people rarely kept waiting. The call bell system people used to request assistance also enabled staff to differentiate between emergency and routine alerts.

All the staff we spoke with had a good understanding of how to support people in a way that respected each person as an individual, each with their own needs and preferences for how they wished to receive their care and support.

Is the service well-led?

There was a registered manager in post. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and were supported by the manager and by other senior staff representing the provider.

Staff said they received a very good level of practical day-to-day managerial support to enable them to carry out their duties. We saw that the provider had ensured there were robust quality assurance processes in place. This meant that people were assured of receiving the care they needed in a way that suited them.

The staff we spoke with said that the manager and other senior staff had an 'open door' approach so that staff could readily express any concerns or ask for guidance whenever they needed to.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.

We looked at the records for people who use the service and found that they had been assessed for their needs and there were care plans that were being delivered to meet their needs.

We found there were enough suitably trained staff to provide the care.

There were appropriate systems in place to ensure that medicines were managed safely.

There were choices of nutritious meals and provision to ensure that people ate their meals.