The Laurels

We carried out an inspection of The Laurels using our comprehensive methodology on 1 March 2023. We rated it as good because it was safe, effective, caring and responsive. The service was rated requires improvement for well-led:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. The service reviewed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided a high level of care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. There was a strong, visible, patient centred culture. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available to support timely patient care.
• Staff consistently treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers. Patient emotional and social needs were seen as being as important as their physical needs.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, and took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. Patient individual needs and preferences were central to the delivery of tailored services. People accessed the service when they needed it and did not have to wait long for treatment. The service responded well to complaints and received many compliments.
• Leaders ran services with a clear vision and strategy. They supported staff to develop their skills. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. There were consistently high levels of engagement with staff, stakeholders and people who used the services. Staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• The service did not have a comprehensive local audit or assurance programme that allowed leaders to support the delivery of their service at a local level.
• We were not assured that all incidents were effectively reported by the service. There was reliance on partners of care to report incidents.
• The service did not hold records or have agendas for cross organisational team meetings.
• The service did not hold a centralised risk record that accurately reflected the services’ risks.