The Lakes Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Staff were well-intentioned towards people; however people’s dignity was not always respected. Staff did not always have a good understanding or recognise people’s individual preference or their communication needs.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We have received mixed feedback from people regarding to staff and the way there were caring towards people. One person told us,"I think most of them are caring.” Another person told us,"It’s alright here for me. I ’m quite happy. If you are alright with them though they are alright with you.” One relative told us,"The staff seem very obliging and helpful.”

Staff was found to be well-intentioned and attentive towards people. However interactions with people were mostly task based. For example we saw staff supporting people to eat and drink but there was a limited interaction.

We received limited feedback from partners in this area. However, the received feedback was positive, and no concerns have been raised.

People’s dignity was not always respected. For example, we saw people sat wearing their bed clothes throughout the day without appropriate cover to protect their dignity. We observed staff supporting two people to eat at the same time whilst standing over them. We also heard staff asking other members of staff in the communal lounge to assist somebody to go to the toilet. We observed that language used to describe people was not always person centred. For example, people who needed assistance to mobilise with the aid of hoist were described as “doubles”.

People were not always treated as individuals. Staff did not always understand people’s individual preferences or recognise these. One relative told us,"He (person’s name) is lonely as there is no one on the unit he can talk to and staff are always busy with others. He’s up most nights and then naps during the day.”

Staff did not always understand people’s individual preferences or recognise them. People’s communication needs were not always recognise and effectively met which impacted on people’s well-being and meeting their needs. There were limited opportunities for people to engage in meaningful interactions with staff. One person told us, "There are things to do sometimes. I join in occasionally. ” Another person told us,"We are making these biscuits today. I don’t always join in but I will if it’s something that interests me.” One relative told us,"Mum is catholic and they have arranged communion for her so they do help with her spiritual needs.”

We observed that staff did not understand people’s individual needs and preferences. For example, during the lunch time we observed one person was offered dessert on 5 different occasion by 2 staff. They realised that person did not like custard, but still brought a cold custard pot as an alternative to sponge and custard. Another person kept saying they were uncomfortable, and staff kept asking them “what they wanted”.

There were policies and procedures to support person-centred care. However, these had not been effective. People’s care plans were often generic, lacked person centred detail and contained contradicting information.

People’s need to be independent had not always been recognised by staff caring for them. People were not always given choice or presented with an opportunity to provide feedback.

People were not always supported to be as independent as possible, and their choices had not always been respected. Staff did not always recognised people’s individual needs.

Staff did not always support people’s independence and offer them choices. For example ,we saw a person who wished to stand up and mobilise. However, staff repeatedly asked them to take a seat. Another person wished to go out in the garden and staff kept responding to the person saying, "Not today, maybe tomorrow.”

There were policies and processes in place to support people’s independence and choice. However, these had not always been utilised effectively. For example there were processes and policies in place in regarding supporting people’s choices and supporting their independence, however these had not always been followed. People’s care plans did not always reflect their individual needs and these were found to be generic and contained contradictory information.

Staff did not always understand people’s needs or the way people were communicating. One person told us,"If you need help they get to you as quickly as they can but sometimes there is a bit of a wait as a lot of us live here." One relative told us,"Sometimes it’s just basic needs missing, like cleaning glasses or brushing teeth.”

Staff did not always understand people’s needs or the way people were communicating for example in regarding people diagnosed with dementia. Staff were overall found to be responsive in meeting people’s immediate needs. However there was not always enough time given to communicate with people or allow people to provide feedback.

Staff were busy and task orientated. Staff had little time to communicate with people and discuss their needs and this at times caused people to become anxious or agitated. We saw people who required support with their personal care needs for example cleaning their fingernails or brushing their hair. People’s oral care needs had also not always been met.

Staff did not have regular opportunities to provide feedback. There was some evidence of group supervisions taking place but staff were not enabled to provide feedback on a one to one basis. One staff member told us," I had one meeting, one group supervision.” Another staff member told us," I was called in to the office when I missed a shift.” Most staff felt comfortable to speak up but some staff were concerned to do so. One staff member told us,"Most staff have been working here for a long time, they think they know it all. I don’t always feel I can ask for help.” There was no evidence that staff received appraisals to discuss the opportunity of future development and enhancing their skills and knowledge. One staff member told us that the provider accommodated their religious needs when asked.

There were processes in place to support staff well-being and enablement. However, these were not effective. For example, there was a supervision policy in place to support staff development. However, staff were not provided with an opportunity to attend regular meetings with their line manager.