Longmead Court Nursing 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

We identified 1 breach of the legal regulations. People’s care was not person-centred and did not always reflect their individual preferences. People’s care was not always delivered in a way which ensured good outcomes.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s care was not person-centred. People's care plans lacked personalisation and information was not up to date. This meant we could not be assured the guidance in place met people’s individual needs and preferences for support. There was no evidence of people’s involvement in their care planning. People’s care was task-based and we found a lack of information about what people enjoyed doing with their time and what was important to them.

Staff were able to tell us about people's individual health needs; however, we found staff were not able to provide as much information about how they promoted people’s personalised interests or ensured there was time to engage with people meaningfully. Staff did not always have access to guidance about how to promote people’s emotional and social needs. The management team told us they were aware people’s care documentation lacked personalisation and detail and were planning to address this by reviewing care plans with people and their relatives prior to transferring information onto their electronic care planning system.

We observed a lack of consideration for people’s individual needs. For example, we found the provider had not fully considered the social and emotional support needs of people cared for in bed. We observed people in their rooms with no TVs, music or sensory items, and no evidence of regular meaningful engagement. We found 1 lounge where people were sitting with both the TV and radio on, both too quiet to be heard and we did not observe staff asking anybody what they would like to do or engaging in any social interactions.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People’s care was not always delivered in a way which promoted equality and ensured good outcomes. Information about people’s individual health needs had not always been shared promptly with other healthcare professionals to ensure people experienced good outcomes. Changes in people’s needs were not always acted upon promptly to ensure referrals were made to relevant health professionals to provide support. This meant people did not always experience well-coordinated care. It was not always clear how people’s individual needs were considered to ensure equity in their experiences of care. For example, we found a lack of robust consideration for the differing needs of people living with dementia, people cared for in bed, and younger people living in the service.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s human rights and their right to equality. Staff were aware of how to raise any concerns about people’s care and treatment. The management team told us people’s care plans contained an equality and diversity section and people’s individual needs and protected characteristics were considered. However, they acknowledged these care plans required greater detail and personalisation.

The provider’s processes for managing the needs of people at risk of experiencing inequalities were not robust. The provider’s care planning and review systems did not ensure the person and those important to them were consulted and involved. The provider had not always communicated effectively with other healthcare professionals to ensure people received joined up care which promoted their physical and mental wellbeing and achieved good outcomes.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.