Lyngate Care Home

The provider was in breach of 2 legal regulations. These were in relation to staffing and good governance, including record keeping. The provider’s system for determining safe staffing levels, indicated not enough were deployed to meet people’s assessed needs, observations and feedback supported this. Staff training records were incomplete, so we could not be assured all training had been carried out. Staff supervision meetings had not been completed in line with the provider’s policy. Gaps and errors were noted within monitoring charts and care records. Governance processes were not robust; with shortfalls we found not being identified internally. Actions and improvements which had been identified had not always been addressed timely.

Safeguarding concerns had been reported in line with guidance, though records lacked detail about what actions the provider had taken. Accidents and incidents records also required greater detail regarding actions taken, outcomes and lessons learned. However, a new formal review process had been introduced, to help identify themes and generate recommendations to minimise reoccurrence. Complaints were managed in line with policy, though records were not contemporaneous. Care records contained detailed guidance about risks to people and how these would be met. Safety checks of the home and equipment had been completed in line with guidance, with certification in place. Medicines had been given to people in line with their prescription; however, we identified some minor issues with record keeping.

Monitoring of care was inconsistent, with gaps noted in charts and care records. Assessment processes were in place, to ensure the home was suitable and could meet people’s needs. People’s consent to care was documented, and where people lacked capacity, decisions had been made in their best interest. People had access to a range of medical and health professionals, with information logged in care records.

Staff were described as kind and caring, with permanent staff having a good knowledge of people and their needs. During site visits, we observed staff to be helpful, friendly and they supported people in a dignified manner. The provider had no restrictions on visiting, with people having ongoing access to family and friends. Feedback about activity provision was mixed. Limited records and evidence to show what was offered or had been completed was shared with us.

Improvement was needed in how the provider sought people’s views and ensured they were involved in the home and how it was run. Further consideration was also needed in ensuring equity in access, especially safe access to outdoor spaces and improved signage to support navigation around the home. Care plans were detailed and explained people’s needs and how they wished to be cared for. Care records also contained a range of person centred information about people’s life history, likes and dislikes, to help staff know people better. Staff communicated with people in ways they wanted and could understand. People’s end of life wishes were captured and respected.

Staff views were sought via a recent survey. Staff meetings had been held, but records detailing when were confusing and contradictory. Changes to ownership of the home and the management team had taken place over the last 9 months, which had impacted on continuity. However, staff and people were happy with the current set up, telling us the manager was approachable, listened and provided support when needed.