Archived: Bowland Lodge

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At the last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met..

We found the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to person centred care, safe treatment, acting on complaints and good governance.

This service scored 39 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not ensure staff worked in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. The care records did not provide enough detail about how to support people. Care was not consistently planned or delivered in a way that reflected people’s individual needs, preferences or circumstances. Staff had not been made aware people had mental health needs and believed their behaviour was due to a learning disability or autism and this led to them not appropriately meeting people’s needs. Records did not consistently show how people’s views, wishes and outcomes informed the care they received. This meant staff did not always have clear guidance on how to provide personalised support. As a result, people were at risk of receiving care that was task-focused rather than responsive to what mattered to them as individuals.

The service did not ensure people received coordinated and continuous care. Systems to support effective communication within the service and with external professionals were not effective. We found gaps in how care was planned, reviewed, and shared. Information was not always up to date or accessible, which meant staff could not be confident they were providing consistent care. There was limited evidence of effective working with other professionals to support people’s ongoing health and care needs. This placed people at risk of receiving fragmented care and poor outcomes.

The service did not ensure people received clear, accessible, and timely information about their care and support. People and those supporting them were not always given information in a way they could understand. We found limited evidence that information was adapted to meet people’s communication needs. This reduced people’s ability to make informed choices about their care. As a result, people were not consistently supported to understand their care, their rights, or what to expect from the service.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People confirmed they knew how to raise concerns but at times did not feel they were listened to. We were told there was a system in place for responding to any concerns or complaints, but we found no evidence to show this was used. Staff had not maintained a record of complaints so we could not determine if any had been received, or how they were responded to, or if any agreed actions to resolve them were sustained. The management team demonstrated an inability to critically review the service. They did not continually evaluate and use information to improve services at the home.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. They had not ensured staff fully understood people’s needs and how they were to work with people. Staff understood how to access specialist health or social care support people might need. The multidisciplinary team visited weekly and ensured people received care and treatment in a timely manner.

The service did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. There was a culture within the service whereby staff did not feel confident to challenge any inequalities they observed or seek to find solutions to the barriers people faced. We raised this with the provider, and they took immediate action to address the issues.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, or supported to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Reviews were not always used to anticipate changes in people’s needs or to update care plans accordingly. People reported differences in how staff supported them to plan for the future. The lack of knowledge staff displayed meant we could not be assured they understood how people might want to be supported now or in the future.