Louth Manor 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The provider aimed to make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. People were supported to make decisions about options for short and long term care and which external professionals or equipment they chose to use. Care plans were detailed in guiding staff about people’s preferences. However, not all staff were aware of some preferences and people told us they were not always supported to do things they had agreed in their care plans.

Records lacked guidance for staff about signs and symptoms of people’s health conditions that might indicate their condition was deteriorating. For example, people with conditions such as diabetes or strokes. This meant there was a risk staff might miss indicators which could result in delayed treatment or access to healthcare. Daily notes showed limited evidence of the support given to people beyond task related events.

We received mixed feedback about how people and their relatives were involved in reviews of care beyond their initial assessment. Some people told us they were involved in reviews annually and when changes occurred, other people said they did not have reviews after moving in. Records showed staff were reviewing the care plans regularly, however there was limited evidence of when and how people and relatives had been consulted and involved in this process.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice. People and relatives told us the staff worked well with other services such as GPs, opticians, hospital specialists and the ambulance service. They ensured treatment and advice was sought in a timely manner and everyone understood people’s needs and wishes to enable continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Where people required hearing aids or glasses to aid good communication this was explained in their care plan. People’s care plans also documented where people might need patience and more time to communicate if they were likely to become confused or distressed.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People had access to various methods for speaking up and raising concerns. Feedback from people was mixed in relation to quality of care, cleanliness, communication, staffing and food. However, it was overall positive and most people, even those with specifics concerns, felt the overall care and standards of the home was good and they were happy to live there.

Complaints and feedback given were managed professionally and investigated and responded to in a thorough and timely manner. For example, concerns about cleanliness or medicines had been resolved. The provider also shared an example where they had worked with relatives to improve the quality and texture of a person’s textured diet .

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, staff supported people to access local hospitals and other health services at a time convenient for them. They ensured people had the correct mobility and communication aids and the premises was fully accessible.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. For example, changing schedules to better suit when people were most alert. Another example was a person who was supported, with their consent, to move to another floor in the home following feedback about their experiences. This meant they felt safer, could be more independent and was better able to socialise, therefore, becoming less distressed. The person told us, “It is like night and day where I am now compared to before. I am much happier.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. This information was recorded in their care plans. A relative wrote, “This letter is to express very many thanks for the huge amount of care all the staff at Louth Manor took of my [family member]. Their compassion and kindness throughout has been nothing short of outstanding. [Staff] are to be commended not only for their care of my [family member] but also the support offered to the family, which has certainly helped a great deal.”