Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Lauriston House, Bromley.

Lauriston House in Bromley is a Rehabilitation (illness/injury) specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs, caring for adults under 65 yrs, dementia, diagnostic and screening procedures, physical disabilities, sensory impairments and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 1st March 2017

Lauriston House is managed by Bromley Healthcare Community Interest Company who are also responsible for 11 other locations

Contact Details:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2017-03-01
    Last Published 2017-03-01

Local Authority:

    Bromley

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

7th November 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

  • Following our inspection in 2015, the provider had made improvements to the rehabilitation unit. During this inspection, we observed that in addition to the resuscitation trolley on the first floor, there was a “grab bag” on the ground floor of the building for use in an emergency situation. All call bells were working and the elevator was also working. Compliance with mandatory training had improved to 88% in line with the provider’s target. An acuity and dependency tool was now in place and staffing on the unit was in line with national guidelines. There were flagging systems in place to identify and address the needs of patients living with dementia. Staff appraisals had risen from 60% during the last inspection to 99% in September 2016.

  • The service monitored its safety thermometer information to improve patient safety. There were effective systems to protect patients from harm and a good incident reporting culture. Learning from incident investigations was disseminated to staff.

  • The environment and equipment was clean and supported safe care. Staff complied with infection prevention and control guidelines.

  • Policies and procedures were developed in line with national guidance. Patients’ needs were assessed and care was delivered in line with best practice guidelines. The service carried out audits to measure performance against set standards. Action plans were implemented to improve the service.

  • Patients were cared for by appropriately qualified staff who had received an induction to the unit and achieved specific competencies before being able to care for patients independently. There was effective internal and external multidisciplinary team working and practitioners worked with other staff across services.

  • Staff provided kind and compassionate care and we received positive comments from patients. Patients and their relatives reported they were involved in their care and were given explanations about their treatment.

  • Services were developed to meet the needs of patients. Discharge planning was managed from the first point of admission to the unit to ensure the correct equipment and care provision was available for people to return home safely.

  • A community psychiatric nurse (CPN) was available to support vulnerable patients with mental health needs within the service and two care managers from the local authority dealt with matters relating to safeguarding.

  • Carers were referred to relevant organisations that supported carers within the borough for carer assessments and support.

  • There were very few complaints, where required learning from these was discussed with staff in the service.

  • We saw good local leadership within the service and staff reflected this in their conversations with us. There was a positive culture in the service and members of staff said they could raise concerns with the leadership team.

  • There were effective governance systems in place and risks were proactively reviewed.

However:

  • There was limited space in the rehabilitation unit. The gymnasium (gym) was split into two with a screen to enable staff to use one side as an office.

  • We noted inconsistencies in the way National Early Warning Scores (NEWS) were calculated in some of the records reviewed.

  • There were no therapy sessions at weekends.

 

 

Latest Additions: