Longueville Court

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

People's assessed needs were met by staff with the right skills. People were supported to have good health outcomes. The provider worked well with others involved in people's care.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Each person’s needs had been assessed. The provider worked well with other health professionals and acted on advice and guidance. For example, advice was sought from, speech and language therapists, tissue viability nurses and the local GP's when people were first admitted. Staff reviewed each person care and support needs regularly and responded to any changes such as medicines, equipment, wound management or the environment. The assessments took account of people's individuality to help ensure everyone was supported equally well to enable them to receive care or treatment that had the best possible outcomes. There was a resident of the day as well as a minimum of a monthly review of care plans. Also a daily meeting at 11am to review any changes such as extra staff, healing pressure ulcers or a change in needs. People's care plans were in the main, an accurate reflection of their needs and in the main were up to date. Some lacked details such as monthly reviews and what people’s diet was. The manager told us they would address this matter. The provider was in the process of moving to an electronic system so that records could be kept up to date more easily and monitoring would be more effective and timelier.

There were skilled staff in place who knew people well. Managers and staff told us where advocacy or people with lasting power of attorney were involved this was respected. Also, where people had sight or other impairments, staff used various skills and changes to care to help ensure people were involved in assessing their needs as much as possible. Staff knew how to communicate with people living with dementia including alternative strategies such as another time or changing the staff.

People we spoke with felt staff were able to meet their needs and different communication strategies were in place to meet these people's needs without discrimination. People had a say in who and how their care and support needs would be met. Staff we spoke with in the main knew people well. The provider used a variety of ways to effectively engage with people or their representatives. For example, some people had a power of attorney or a relative who spoke on their behalf due to sensory impairments or living with dementia.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Support and treatment to people was based on national guidance and best practice such as for PEG care and pressure ulcer wound management. A visiting GP told us he reviewed people’s needs based on electronic health records. We found some contradictions in some care plans regarding diet and where people could eat a normal diet but were recorded as needing a pureed diet. Also, where people may need covert medicines, it was not clear why this was as the care plan stated the person had mental capacity. The manager told us they would address these concerns. Where people were at risk of dehydration which can affect skin integrity, staff had not always ensured fluid targets were recorded. Records did not always show what action had been taken when people had not met their fluid intake target for the day. There was effective oversight of the status of people's wounds with involvement of other health professionals involved. However, the records did not always reflect this. We found that not all staff had adhered to the provider's wound assessment form guidance and had not completed wound assessment records. We found there were gaps in other records, so it was not always clear if people's pain was being managed effectively.

People were supported with their healthcare needs as required. This was for a wide range of health conditions including dementia, epilepsy, diabetes and multiple sclerosis. These needs were met by staff who had skills in nursing and care. One person told us they had no concerns with accessing or being supported to attend health care appointments. They staff always promoted independence as much as possible. They told us, "The staff sort out GP visits 1-2 times a week. We can do online appointments for ourselves. The GP came to see me, and I was prescribed medicines. Another person said, "If I need healthcare support and I ask staff, the nurse will come quickly. the nurses treat me as a person, and it is like one big family". People could where appropriate, manage their health and seek support such as a visiting dentist and GPs.

Staff were up to date with each person’s needs and any changes in their health. Where people were supported with alternative format of food such as puree or through a PEG, this was done in line with guidance and support from healthcare professionals. Staff used a wide range of assessment tools to ensure people's needs were understood. Staff told us they routinely review people's assessments to ensure they held the current information.

Staff told us they benefitted from attending a daily meeting in the home. Representatives from all areas of the service including catering, clinical domestic and activities attended the meeting. The meeting helped to monitor the quality of the support and care being provided and a reminder to staff of expectations. For example, the manager highlighted staff were not always recording when the support people to reposition and reminded staff of their responsibilities regarding security of the sluice room and keeping it clear of clutter. New admissions were discussed and how staff would meet their needs. The manager told us they spoke with staff and people every day. Feedback from relatives had so far been positive. People told us about the new manager. One person said, “The new Manager seems very friendly, he has a way of handling people. I think he could probably be very strict, but he is friendly and personable.” Another person said, ”I am impressed by (Manager). They took the residents’ meeting 2 weeks ago and he seems very caring. He said he would try to solve people’s problems.” Staff told us there was an open culture where all issues and needs of people to share learning. One staff told us, "The deputy manager comes straight away if we need urgent help. We have enough staff”. Staff told us the management team completed audits for administration of medicines to ensure they had been completed accurately. One staff member told us, " In the morning, the maintenance team and manager does a walk around and anything that needs attention, we will discuss all of these at 11am morning meeting."

We spoke with a visiting GP, they told us, “Staff know people well and what needed to be reviewed. I can see on the GP records system what I am coming here for. Staff just update me as needed." The management team reviewed various aspects of people's care and treatment records. For example, daily handover notes, health conditions, monthly weight records, accidents and incidents. This was to identify if there were areas for improvement or patterns forming that needed action to be taken. Each area of the home had a manager/nurse manager and they helped ensure sufficient staff with the right skills were in place, such as enough for hoisting people, use of syringe driver with refresher training and staff meetings for learning. There was also more general learning for staff regarding incidents to help ensure correct assessment of people's health needs and safe repositioning.

People felt that they were mainly well cared for and could give feedback on the care and support they received. One person told us, "The staff try really hard to get to know people. They have chatted to me about what I like and don’t like. They listen and they do remember”. Another person told us, "I have every confidence in the staff, they have kept me alive so far.” Another person told us, "They seem good at monitoring residents and their health". Communication was made to people in various formats including paper records, e-mail and physical meetings with individual people. None of the people we spoke with could recall receiving a survey, but they were able to express their opinion through the residents' meetings. One person told us, “We have regular residents' meetings and can say what we want".

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.