Archived: Lyncroft Care Home

Is the service safe?

The people who used the service told us that they felt safe living at the service and knew who to speak with if they were worried about anything. Staff had received training on keeping vulnerable people safe. People's personal files included a range of risk assessments and these included procedures to safely manage risks.

People said that their consent had been sought in relation to the need for a yearly 'flu vaccination and for an annual health check. However, adequate arrangements were not in place for decisions to be made on people's behalf when they did not have the capacity to consent. We have asked the provider to tell us what they will do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to mental capacity.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People's human rights were therefore properly recognised, respected and promoted.

Staff recruitment practice was safe and thorough.

Is the service effective?

People were fully involved in planning their lives and a range of activities were provided which reflected their wishes and individual interests. Staff confirmed this and gave us examples showing that people found activities stimulating.

Care plans guided staff to meet most people's needs in a consistent and informed way. However, there were no care plans or risk assessments recorded with regard to one person who had been admitted ten weeks previously. This meant that staff had no written guidance on which to base their care of this person. We have asked the provider to tell us what they will do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to assessing people's needs and risks they may be exposed to.

Is the service caring?

We observed, and heard, staff taking a caring, personal and, at times, appropriately humorous approach to the people who use the service.

People told us that staff respected their likes and dislikes and thought that their needs were being met. One relative told us, '[My relative] is always happy to be back [at the service] after a visit home.'

Is the service responsive?

People's personal records showed that staff were encouraged to take an approach to people which was centred on their individual needs. People's personal preferences, and likes and dislikes, were recorded and support was provided that met people's wishes.

There were meetings for the people who used the service. One person who used the service told us, 'We've talked about holidays.'

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system which identified, assessed and managed risks to people's health, safety and welfare.

Staff described a sound set of values upon which the service was based. These included fulfilling people's need for respect, dignity, privacy, independence, freedom of speech and confidentiality.

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

People who lived at Lyncroft were able to discuss their care in house meetings. People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. We observed staff treated people respectfully and with sensitivity.

We found peoples' needs had been assessed and care plans were individualised describing the support people required. Peoples' health needs were reviewed by the local GP practice and assessment had been completed by specialist health care professionals.

We spoke to staff who told us they understood the importance of people receiving a nutritious, balanced diet. We saw care plans had previously contained records of people's weight but these were not up to date.

An audit of the home's medicines management had been undertaken by the local Clinical Commissioning Group. The audit found the processes in place were satisfactory but identified the need to develop a number of policies for example a homely remedies policy.

We reviewed staff training records and found staff had received training in manual handling, food safety, safeguarding vulnerable adults and infection control. A staff training matrix showed what training had taken place and when further training was due for each member of staff.

People needs were assessed and their care was planned and delivered to meet their needs. People were supported to access primary healthcare and other services.

People were involved in the running of the home, including the selection of new staff. People using the service told us they liked the staff working in the home. One person named several members of staff and said, 'They're my friends'. Another person told us about a particular member of staff they liked and said, 'She has a joke with me'.

We found that staff records were missing some required information. Although the manager assured us that all the required information had been obtained for all staff, evidence of this could not be provided.