Lady Jane Court 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

People's care and treatment needs were appropriately assessed, monitored and reviewed. The provider had systems and processes that supported people to receive care and treatment that was consistent. People were involved in the planning of their care and support. all people using the service received the same opportunities, experiences and outcomes. People's wishes regarding care and support at the end of their lives was discussed, recorded and planned with them.

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 confirmed they were supported in how they wished to be cared for; their needs, preferences and routines were known and respected. One person said, “I am very happy and feel safe to live my life here, I want for nothing and I’m very happy and content.” Another person said, “Oh yes, we can go to bed, get up when we wish, everything is our choice and it's respected.”

Staff were positive that guidance provided was sufficiently detailed and up to date. A staff member said, “Care plans are detailed and provide the guidance we need. We also get to know people by speaking with them and spending time with them.”

Staff had time to spend with people, they were unrushed and used good and effective communication and listening skills. Staff provided options and encouraged people's independence. This included choices of where people sat to have their lunch, respecting people’s developed friendship groups and how people spent their time. Staff respected individual routines.

Feedback from people was positive about their care and treatment, this included how staff provided consistent care and treatment based on their needs, routines and preferences. Relatives were positive the care provided to their relation. A relative said, “We couldn’t ask for anything more, in a home, we honestly couldn’t, and we are very grateful [relative] is so well cared for.”

Staff told us how they ensured consistency and continuity in care. This included how they worked with external health and social care provider’s, shared information and followed any recommendations made. A staff member said, “We share information with others such as ambulance and hospital staff. We follow recommendations made by others such as the GP, speech and language team and physiotherapist.”

Feedback from external professionals was consistently positive. This included how well their recommendations were implemented by staff and staff’s knowledge and understating about the care needs of people they were caring for.

The provider had systems and processes that supported people to receive care and treatment that was consistent. This included processes to share information with partner agencies to ensure important information was shared. The provider had developed a positive and professional working relationship with partner agencies and this collaborative approach ensured effective and responsive care. Care and treatment needs were appropriately assessed, monitored and reviewed to ensure staff had up to date guidance. People and or their relatives were involved in discussions and decisions about their care.

People and their relatives were positive about how information provided, was up to date, and available. A relative said, “Communications is always good.”

Staff told us how people’s communication needs were assessed and planned for. For example, information could be made available in different formats, including languages other than English, if required. Staff were aware of the importance of confidentiality.

The provider had an up to date general data protection regulation (GDPR) policy in place. A sample review of care records confirmed people’s communication needs were assessed and planned for. Aids such as useful signage on some floors within the service supported people to orientate.

People and their relatives were positive about how staff listened and involved them in how their care and treatment was provided. People confirmed they knew who the registered manager was and that they felt able and confident to raise any issues or concerns. A person said, “We are given a welcome pack, it's in our bedroom and this includes information about how to make a complaint.” A relative said, “I honestly have no complaints at all, I’ve been sitting here thinking as we’ve been talking, and there honestly isn’t anything negative to say, only positive things, we are very happy and much more to the point, [relation] is very happy.” Another relative said, “If I had a complaint I would raise it with the manager, who is always available, but I have never needed to.”

Staff told us how they involved people as fully as possible in their care and treatment. Staff understood the complaints process and told us how the management team discussed any complaints with them at the 10/10 heads of department meetings.

People and visitors had access to the provider’s complaint policy. All complaints or concerns were logged onto the providers internal reporting system, 'RADAR', through workflow actions. This system assists to identify possible causes and actions required to reduce further risks. Any lessons learnt or follow up actions were cascaded with staff via 10/10 daily heads of department meetings, themed supervisions, or clinical review meetings. The regional director reviewed complaints and any internal investigations to ensure all actions including any learning had been completed. At the time of the assessment 2 recent complaints had been received, there were no themes or patterns, and the registered manager was in the process of reviewing these and commencing their investigation, this was well within the provider’s expected timescale.

Feedback from people and their relatives confirmed access to care, support and treatment was available to all. No issues or concerns were raised about discrimination. People had access to all areas of the service, including a safe and secure pleasant garden that was easily accessed. People confirmed they had been provided with information about the service and had received all the information they required.

Staff confirmed people had equal access to areas of the service. Staff were aware of people’s including needs included protected characteristics.

Feedback received from external providers was consistently positive. People were equally supported to access services.

People’s individual care and treatment needs were assessed before they transferred to the service. This included consideration of any protected characteristics and any adjustments required. This protected people from discrimination. People were provided with a welcome pack that gave information about the service and what they could expect. The service was a new, modern purpose built care home designed to high specifications. The environment, premises and equipment met people’s mobility and access needs.

Feedback from people and their relatives confirmed they received opportunities to share their experiences about the service and felt listened and involved in their care. This included attending review meetings, resident and relative meetings and speaking with staff and the management team and using the provider’s complaints process if required. A relative said, “ There are meetings for residents and family, and anything can be raised.”

Feedback from staff confirmed staff knew and understood people’s care and treatment needs, routines and preferences. This included people more at risk of self isolation. Staff told us how they monitored and ensured all people’s needs were considered and met. This included well-being staff spending time with each person throughout the week, these interactions were recorded and monitored to ensure all people received the same opportunities and any concerns could easily be identified and acted upon.

The registered manager ensured all people using the service received the same opportunities, experiences and outcomes. The daily 10/10 heads of department meetings, daily staff handover, resident of the day, resident and relative meetings and care record monitoring all supported this.

Whilst people and relatives we spoke with did not confirm end of life care had been discussed with them, they were confident and positive that they or their loved one would receive the care and support need at the end of life. A person said, “Planning for the future? – not really, we will just take it stage by stage, and I know we will receive all the help we need.”

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s current and future care needs, preferences and wishes. Staff confirmed they had guidance of people’s end of life care wishes and plans. Staff also confirmed they had received training and had detailed guidance about how to meet people’s health conditions. A staff member said, “”EoL (end of life) care wishes are discussed with people and their relatives. Some people have a DNaCPR (do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) in place and staff are aware of this.”

The provider’s pre-assessment process confirmed people’s wishes regarding end of life was discussed, recorded and planned with them. There was an internal process as to how this information was shared with staff in the event it was required. Whilst at the time of the assessment no person was receiving end of life care, the provider had end of life care plan templates available to be completed with the person and their relative when required. Care records confirmed people’s funeral plan wishes had been discussed and recorded.