Lyndhurst House

Since the last inspection, improvements have been made and people were receiving safe care and treatment. Staff and leaders were clearly able to identify situations that amounted to safeguarding and staff were confident to use the whistle-blowing process if needed. Staff knew people well and were able to identify changes to health and identify care and support needs. Lessons were learned when things went wrong. Medicines were administered and recorded safely and staff understanding of when to administer PRN (as and when required medicines) was robust. Staff were recruited safely and were supported through training. There was a plan in place to ensure they had ongoing support in the form of supervision and appraisal meetings. There were enough staff to support people safely. Ongoing training made sure that staff had the skills needed to support people. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and actioned by the management team; safety checks were undertaken by staff and the management team. The provider had systems and processes in place to assess and manage the risk of infection. Risk assessments in relation to epilepsy care were not robust, however, the management team took immediate action to address this.

People had good outcomes because their needs were assessed. Their care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected characteristics. The service worked in harmony with people at the centre of their care. People were enabled and encouraged to make their own choices. People were supported to live independently. People were supported within the service and within the community to achieve their goals and aspirations. However, epilepsy care planning was lacking, and mental capacity assessments were not undertaken according to best practice. Some decisions had been recorded without evidencing that people had been assessed to check if they could understand, retain and weigh up the information to communicate their decision about the matter concerned.

People were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. Their privacy and dignity were respected. People’s wishes were valued, and their choices respected because the service was passionate about achieving the best possible outcomes for them. This included supporting people to live as independently as possible and to maintain important relationships. People told us they took part in daily living activities to promote their independence.

People were able to access care in ways that met their individual circumstances and protected equality characteristics when they needed it. People’s preferences and choices were respected. People’s communication needs were known and understood by staff. People were able to access the community for leisure, and access resources available to support a healthy and fulfilling life.

There was an inclusive and positive culture of continuous learning and improvement. This was based on meeting the needs of the people using the service. Leaders proactively supported staff and collaborated with partners to improve the service and enhance the quality of care being delivered to ensure it was safe and person-centred.