Burnham 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 our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We observed staff and management knew people well and were able to tell us relevant information about each person without needing to access care records. Staff were able to demonstrate a good knowledge of people’s routines. People received religious diets where specified, for example, halal meat.

Staff told us, “[Name] likes to talk to people… [They are] always happy to have someone with [them], [they] love to watch football. Conversation is the key, so [staff] can understand what they like. [They] like James Bond movies. [They] like to go out for a walk when the weather is good.”

We witnessed the registered manager and staff working with families to respond to people’s changing needs, to try different assistive equipment to improve the person’s emotional wellbeing by spending more time with their partner and enjoy meals together.

People told us how they were given their favourite meals on request and how staff knew their preferences, for example, “I’ve got two [staff] who do the cooking, they bring in my food and they have a good old chat with me. At night I have sandwiches and they bring them in and more jelly, I only like the red jelly.” This meant that people’s care was delivered in a way that was centred around them.

People, their relatives, and staff told us they were involved in care plan reviews. We saw regular engagement with health professionals, meaning that people’s care was built around them.

People who had lived at the service for a long time had very detailed care plans and life histories. However, people who had recently moved into the service had less detailed, person-centred care plans. They did not always reflect people’s sexuality, their general day-to-day routines, or how people’s medical conditions impacted them. Some people’s care records referred to other service users, misgendered them, or had been copied and pasted. We provided feedback to the registered manager, and they took immediate action to rectify this.

The provider had a strong understanding of people’s diverse health and social care needs, including neurodiversity and how this could impact people’s day-to-day lives, and the care they required.

People moving in from services where they had lived for a long time were supported through a carefully planned transition and coordinated with relevant health professionals to ensure a smooth and flexible transfer of care. Records evidenced that the service supported people to access community-based activities with relatives or unpaid carers. Where needed, staff from the service also accompanied them to ensure continued care provision.

Staff identified where people needed more professional support in a timely manner and carried out appropriate information gathering to make comprehensive referrals, for example, the use of behavioural tools and monitoring a person who was in distress. This meant that the person was supported to reduce the risk of harming themselves or others promptly by accessing increased care and support.

Staff told us their induction was comprehensive. Records evidenced that staff attended training on a regular basis to improve their knowledge around different topics including neurodiversity and dementia. The service held a stable staffing team, with minimal use of agency. Where agency staff supported the service, they also were consistent and familiar to the service. People had allocated keyworkers to provide specific support for compulsive behaviours such as hoarding.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were sometimes tailored to individual needs.

People were encouraged to wear their aids to improve their hearing and vision. Easy read clocks were placed around the home, and we observed people telling each other the time during the day.Staff told us, “If someone is unable to write, we would record consent and reviews for them. If someone is non-verbal, we look for signs and read body language. We can provide pictures for [people] to point to their choices.” This meant that people were enabled to access information about the home in a way that maintained their independence.

Relatives told us that they sometimes felt that more information could be shared with them regarding people’s progress and their care. Relatives acknowledged that there had been a vast improvement, but that there was still work to do. The registered manager agreed with this feedback and had taken action to improve.

On our visit, we observed menus to be written in small text with generic pictures at the top. There was little information to support staff to provide information to a person who experienced sensory loss. We gave feedback to the provider, and they took action to remedy this.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had a clear complaints procedure and policy. The service received 1 complaint in 2025 which was resolved, with lessons learnt identified, and communicated effectively amongst staff. Records evidenced that people and staff were invited to regular meetings and offered surveys to provide their feedback about the home. Visitors were asked for feedback regularly. Meeting minutes showed people’s input, clear actions to be taken and an update as to when these had been completed.

People told us they knew who the manager was and who they could speak to if they had any concerns about the service. Staff told us they felt listened to and said that the leadership were approachable. This meant people and staff had control over their care, activities, and how the service operated.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider’s policies supported access to the service and its facilities.

Visiting was unrestricted, and relatives and friends spoke positively about feeling welcomed to the service. They were always encouraged to join their loved one for meals and offered drinks.

People were supported to obtain accessible call bells where they struggled with manual dexterity. These call bells could be kept with their mobility aids and in the bathroom so they could maintain their independence around the service.

People had access to a wide range of activities and communal spaces. We observed staff facilitating activities such floristry, baking, arts and crafts and dancing on our visits to the service. Records evidenced celebrations such as St Patricks Day, Diwali, race days, and national pie day. People participated in a nativity event for Christmas, choosing which part they wanted to play. This meant people were enabled to access opportunities that suited their individual needs.

The environment supported accessibility although was not always dementia friendly. Corridors were clear of obstruction, a lift was available for people to use to access areas upstairs, and bedroom doors were personalised to help orientation. We observed people who chose to remain in their rooms or smaller communal areas within the home watching TV or listening to music. Adjustments had been made to the admission process to support those with diverse care needs to ensure they had equitable access to care provided at the service.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

We observed staff actively encouraging and supporting people to use communication methods that suited their individual needs when discussing their care. One person was supported to use a voice recording to express their views and give consent for their care plan review, with support from their relative. This enabled them to participate independently in the process, as they were unable to provide a written signature.

Staff were kind and patient, and had adjusted policies, activities and care to allow people to have choice and control over their support. Staff recruitment processes showed that the provider actively recruited applicants who were neurodiverse, and ensured any reasonable adjustments were put in place before interview stage. The registered manager told us that the adaptations had meant neurodiverse staff joined the service with ease and were able to mentor other new staff members during their induction process.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People had appropriate end-of-life care plans including Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and ReSPECT forms where required. These were completed in line with people’s wishes and were respected by staff.

Records of Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) were in place where applicable. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of supporting people at the end of their life.

Anticipatory medicines were in stock and available for people who needed them. Staff demonstrated compassion when caring for people on an end-of-life pathway. A person’s relative told us, “[The service] even offered to let me stay as [person] is end of life.”