Alma Lodge Care Home

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 changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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 provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.
People's care plans and risk assessments were not all personalised for each person and information was not always accurate and kept up to date. There was minimal information about what people enjoyed doing with their time and what was important to them and very few activities were provided in line with people’s interests. People told us they did get bored, but some were able to go out into the community and two talked of feeding the birds in the garden.
People told us, “Good place, I am comfortable, all my bits around me and get fed and they do ensure I see a doctor when in need to,” and “All okay, nice staff and they listen.” A relative said, “I have had a few little grumbles, they sort it quickly, care is good and they always consult me.”
People rooms were very personalised and contained items that were important to them.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.
People told us, “I have seen a nurse and a chiropodist, the staff arrange my health checks, and I go to have eye checks.” One relative said, “They let me know of appointments so we can go with them and we get feedback if we can’t go.”
Staff told us that they worked alongside families and always inform families of any appointments and keep a record of the appointment and advice given.
A health professional told us, “Staff are always polite. They know residents well and contact us when needed.”
There was evidence of regular partnership working with health professionals such as specialist nurses, and therapy teams. These records could be better linked to the care plans, but they showed responsive co-ordinated care. Staff were able to discuss how they ensured people were treated equally and fairly no matter their age, sexuality or their health diagnosis. They told us of their knowledge of the Equality Act and how they used this in supporting people and decision making.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. A relative told us, “Communication is difficult, because they are deaf and have dementia, but staff speak to him in [first language] and that really makes a difference.”
Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers. Staff responded to people’s communication needs. These were assessed and recorded within individual risk assessments. These included specific information on how people’s communication needs could be met and what aided their communication. For example, those who needed spectacles or hearing aids. Systems to support people to communicate with staff, relatives and friends had been assessed and promoted. For example, video calls were set up and staff supported people to phone their loved ones as necessary.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.
The registered manager told us, that they met with each person on a one to one basis rather than having relative and resident meetings. This gave the people who remained in their rooms an opportunity to be heard. However, outcomes and actions taken of these meetings were not documented. One person told us that he can speak to staff to express his concerns and they are responsive to his needs.
There was a complaints policy and procedure, we saw that concerns raised had been responded to promptly and thoroughly. The management team kept a log that ensured the manager had an overview. They told us they had an open-door policy, and we saw people and relatives speak to the registered manager to share information and ask questions. Relatives told us, “Never felt I couldn’t talk to staff if I had a concern or worry.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
People and families said there were no barriers to access care and treatment, and they felt it was done in a timely way. Relatives told us people were supported to continue to access the care and treatment they required outside the home. For example, for people with long term health conditions, the home worked with specialists and GPs to ensure care and support was provided.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.
People told us, “We are all different here, but we are all treated the same.” Relatives told us that their loved ones were included and involved in decision making, and that they (as visitors) felt welcomed and listened to. One relative said, “Always welcomed and offered drinks.”
Records showed staff had received training in Equality Diversity and they explained how they treated people equally, without discrimination and respected their individual needs, including any religious or cultural needs.

People were not always 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.
The lack of care plans for some people had the potential to impact on people’s important decisions. Not all staff had completed end of life training.
People had ReSPECT forms. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment and ensures their personal wishes are followed. People also had a DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) decision, also known as a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order, which were accessible to all staff and health professionals should a situation arise.