Lyles House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Staff understood peoples needs, and worked well with external professionals to achieve good outcomes for people. The service used recognised tools to monitor areas of concern in people’s health and implemented changes promptly to support people. Peoples wishes and choices were sought and respected. Whilst uptake was limited, the service offered a variety of activities based on people’s feedback. There were very few opportunities for people to go on trips or outings. People enjoyed the food, and the service understood peoples individual dietary needs.

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.

People told us they were involved in planning and reviewing the care they received. ‘They talk to me, I can ask them questions [about their care plan] and they answer me, they are very good’. A relative we spoke to told us they had sat with a member of the leadership team to review and agree their family members care plan together.

The management team reviewed peoples care records regularly to ensure they remained accurate. The manager told us they invited people and their relatives to review meetings.

The support people required was assessed prior to admission to ensure their needs could be met at the home. Ongoing reviews ensured any changes were identified and care plans were updated. People and their relatives were involved in these meetings.

People and relatives told us they had their needs met and were happy with the support they received at Lyles House. People had regular access to a GP who visited the service weekly. People told us staff worked will with other professionals involved in their care, such as chiropodists, nurses and opticians.

Staff followed best practice guidelines and advice from professionals. For example, one person had recently been assessed as requiring a specialist chair. The manager had worked alongside an Occupational Therapist to ensure the person received the equipment they needed in a timely way. Where people had been assessed as being at risk of malnutrition, records evidenced that appropriate referrals had been made to external services such as dietitians.

Care plans followed best practice guidelines and used recognised tools to assess risk. These assessments were reviewed regularly, which meant changes could be identified and actioned in a timely way.

People and their relatives told us Lyles House worked in partnership with external professionals to ensure people received the care they needed. A relative told us how the service had quickly identified their family member needed to see a GP, and arranged this for the same day. Speaking of this, they said ‘They ring and tell me they have called for the doctor, then they call to say they have a prescription and everything is good. The communication is very good’.

The manager told us they have a very positive relationship with other services. This included SALT, social workers, chiropodists, opticians, dentist and specialist nurses’. The manager told us they always make sure a staff member is available to accompany healthcare professionals as needed during this visit.

We spoke with a visiting GP during our onsite assessment. They told us they have a strong working relationship with Lyles House and find them to be well organised with excellent communication.

Care plans reflected advice and recommendations given from healthcare professionals. The home made referrals appropriately and recorded consultation outcomes clearly within records.

People and their relatives felt the service supported with health conditions well. People told us staff made referrals to healthcare professionals appropriately and they could access specialists when needed. One person told us when they feel unwell due to their health condition staff support them with a lighter meal. ‘If I feel unwell I press the bell and ask for a smaller supper meal.’

Managers at the service were knowledgeable about people's healthcare needs, and had assessed people thoroughly. People following specialist diets for health needs were accommodated. People's health was promoted through good nutrition and hydration. Staff were aware of people's health conditions and followed guidance in place from healthcare professionals.

There were processes in place to monitor people's health. For example, the management team held daily meetings with staff to update them with relevant changes, including to people's health. Care plans were detailed, and gave thorough overviews of people's healthcare needs. Where ongoing support was required of specialist services, their input and contact details were recorded within care records.

Everyone we spoke with was positive about the support they received, and outcomes they experienced as a result of living at the service. One person told us ‘I would recommend it and would say this is the place to come’.

The service had worked well with other professionals to ensure people's health needs were met effectively and in a timely manner. Local health professionals spoke positively regarding working in partnership to drive improvement within the service. The manager and staff spoke passionately about wanting people to receive a good standard of care which achieved positive outcomes for them.

The service had introduced effective approaches to monitor people’s care and treatment, such as regularly reviewing care records with people, their relatives and relevant healthcare professionals. Where there were barriers to positive outcomes for people, the service identified and took action to address them. This included chasing referrals where needed to avoid delays in people accessing healthcare professionals.

People told us staff asked for their consent before care was agreed, and that staff supporting them offered choice. One person told us 'I cannot think of anything which restricts me'. People's care was discussed with them and reviewed regularly.

Managers and staff showed a good understanding of seeking consent from people or their legal representatives as necessary. We observed care to be delivered in a way which respected people's wishes and preferences. However, one care plan appeared to have been agreed by people's family rather than the person in receipt of care where they were able to consent themselves. The manager told us the care plan had been signed by the person's representative first, however acknowledged this needed to be reviewed.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS application had been made where required. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations and assessments were in place to support decision making and any restrictions to people’s liberty.