The Lakes Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People’s needs had not always assessed and appropriately reviewed. People’s care plans were not always reflective of their needs. Overall people living at the service and their relatives felt that the service met people’s 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.

People’s needs had not always been assessed prior to their admission. We received mixed feedback from people and their families. One relative told us," We came to see the place and (staff name) did an assessment of her needs.” Another person told us,"It took a while but Mum has settled and we have a care plan in place for her needs now.”

Staff were well-intentioned towards people. However, they did not always understand people’s immediate needs or the way they tried to communicate those needs for example through their behaviour. One staff member told us,"I could do with more training.”

There were processes in place to ensure people’s needs were assessed prior to admission, and risk and care plans were reviewed regularly. However, these had not always been effective and followed up. Records did not clearly demonstrate that assessments had taken place prior to the commencement of care. There was limited evidence in people’s care plans and paper files that initial assessments of people’s needs were completed. Risk assessments, care plans and a summary of needs were not always detailed or updated when a person’s needs had changed.

There was no evidence that people were involved in their own care planning. People's dietary and hydration needs were being met overall. However, we observed that not all of the people had access to drinks in their rooms in the morning or were able to reach them. The quality of food had improved, and most people commented positively about their food. One person told us:"The food is okay, what I’ve had has been quite good.” Another person told us: “I don’t like all the sloppy stuff which we get a lot. There isn’t much choice but they will make me a sandwich if I want one. They are good with drinks we get a lot.” One relative told us,"Mum is eating better than she has for a long time. She has put 2kg on since being here and her diet has improved.”

Staff were not always aware of or worked with best practice and in line with current guidance. Staff did not always administer people’s medicines in a safe way or work with up to date guidance.

There were processes in place to ensure people had a choice of food and drink. However, these had not always been effective. For example, people’s individual hydration and dietary needs were not always clear in their care plan and records made were not comprehensive including people who had modified diets. Some people’s care plans also contained contradictory information regarding their food and drink needs.

People were not always supported in a person-centred way which took into account their personal skills, strengths and goals. For example, we observed that some people’s personal care needs were not always met, and people were not always supported to change their position in bed. One person told us,"I look around and overall everything is alright but I have to ask days in advance if I want something different or altering. I have showers but not as much as I’d like.” One relative told us,” I feel mum’s needs are met. Staff are caring and supportive, of me as well. If I ring they answer all my questions about her food, sleep etc. And they have always been approachable.."However other relatives told us that people’s basic needs were not always met, such as oral care needs, or pressure relief.

Staff did not always support people in a person-centred way or know how to meet their needs. For example staff did not always recognise what people were communicating to staff.

There was no evidence that people’s care and support was routinely monitored and measured. For example there was evidence of referrals made and GP wards round completed but this was not clearly reflected in notes or reviews and there was no evidence about how adjustments to care were monitored and reviewed in a meaningful way.