Elm Park 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 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The registered manager worked to make sure people were at the centre of their care. But there were times when accepted routines were not person centred.

On some occasions institutionalised practices had developed such as staff wearing scrubs, the kitchen being closed outside of mealtimes, food being locked away, queuing for medicines and having to ask for milk when people made their own hot drinks. There had been reasons for these practices when they were first individually introduced. Some people were also following similar routines when they had lived in other types of services. But these practices and routines had not been reviewed to see if they were still necessary, person centred, and if other alternatives could be trialled. Combined with this was also people’s expectations and life experiences of living in mental health hospitals and settings, which may have meant their expectations in life were limited. Work was needed here to ensure people were enabled to fully contribute to these conversations and for leaders to review these practices and culture. The registered manager said they would do this.

The registered manager understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined up and people had continuity of care.

The registered manager understood how to promote the best outcomes for people in terms of accessing mental health services and general health input for people. They monitored and reviewed this for people to ensure they got the support and care they needed. The registered made plans with professionals to support people to move onto homes which met their changing needs.

The provider supplied appropriate and up-to-date information for individuals. But this was not always in formats which were tailored to individuals.

People had reviewed care plans, risk assessments, consent forms, and 1 to 1 sessions, which people had signed to agree to the content of these records. People were provided with verbal information too in their 1 to 1 sessions and general meetings. However, the information in all these documents were recorded in the same formats. How accessible and if people understood these formats were not assessed and reviewed. We asked the registered manager to consider this issue moving forward.

The registered manager had created systems for people to share feedback and raise complaints about their care. Staff involved people in decisions about their care. But there was not always a culture to seek and listen to people views in a meaningful way

Efforts were made to involve people in managing their day to day care needs. Staff were led by what people said they wanted. But more work was needed to give people an opportunity to challenge some aspects of the day to day choices at the home in a meaningful way. One person had periodically said they did not like the food. Staff had asked what they would prefer instead, but nothing had been changed. Management and staff had not considered other different ways to meaningfully explore this issue with this person. When we raised the issue with staff wearing scrubs a member of the management team said they would have a meeting and ask people if they were still ok with this. The management team had not considered people’s previous care experiences and possible limited expectations of what their lives can look like and what they needed to do to promote choice and a life without these kinds of restrictions. Nor were management reviewing these practices to check they were still necessary, what people wanted, if they had been given a meaningful opportunity to decide.

The registered manager made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were seeing health professionals routinely and when this was needed.

The registered manager actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this.

The registered manager challenged the lack of mental health support for some people. They found there was some improvements as a result of this, but they still needed to keep monitoring this aspect of people’s care because of the potential risk of people not receiving the right support from the mental health professionals.

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.

Staff supported people to consider the end part of their lives. Staff supported people to make plans and to start thinking about this period of their lives and what was important to them.