Courtfield 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.

Everyone living in the home had a care plan, which generally reflected people’s needs, preferences and long-term aspirations. Care delivery aligned with what people’s care plans set out and records of care reflect that.

Care plans included information on people’s personal histories and cultural backgrounds and care was adapted to respect people’s individual identities. Staff worked with people when their needs changed to consider the care, support and treatment options that best met their changing needs such as moving rooms to a more suitable area as mobility declined.

Care was tailored to meet individual needs and was not task focused.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

Everyone living in the home had a care plan, which generally reflected people’s needs, preferences and long-term aspirations. Care delivery aligned with what people’s care plans set out and records of care reflect that.

Care plans included information on people’s personal histories and cultural backgrounds and care was adapted to respect people’s individual identities. Staff worked with people when their needs changed to consider the care, support and treatment options that best met their changing needs such as moving rooms to a more suitable area as mobility declined.

Care was tailored to meet individual needs and was not task focused.

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

Staff were able to describe people’s different communication needs, and we saw them communicate with people in their preferred way, speaking clearly, making eye contact and allowing people time to respond.

There was a service brochure available on the website, this was visual and included pictures and larger text, and a description of the environment and expectations of the home.

Staff had a good understanding of data protection requirements and information was stored securely on the digital care planning system, or in folders in a locked office. There was an Accessible Information and Communication Policy in place which included people’s right to accessible communication methods if needed.

There was dementia friendly signage in place throughout the home using both symbols and written word. Bedroom doors had photos and names and included symbols to discretely identify people’s needs and medical conditions.

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.

There were signs around the home offering people and family’s opportunity to share feedback via a quick response (QR) code. There were also regular opportunities to complete anonymous surveys. Results of these were summarised by head office and included baselines and satisfaction percentage.

The provider encouraged and responded to public reviews of the service online via an established reviews forum.

The manager had reintroduced Resident and Family meetings which were held in the evening. Actions resolved from these meetings were displayed on the “you said, we did board” in reception. A family member told us, “I attended, so I found out there is a plan to redecorate the home”.

People we spoke to said they were not aware of a formal complaint policy but said they would speak to staff if they had anything to complain about. A family member had shared a concern and told us, “Once I mentioned it, it hasn’t happened again.”

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

The home environment was accessible with a lift and handrails in place. People had access to hoists, adapted beds and walking frames where required, to reduce physical barriers to access.

Dementia friendly signage helped those with a dementia diagnosis find their way around the home. In bedrooms dementia friendly furniture had been purchased and was being fitted in bedrooms as they were renovated.

There were arrangements for managerial support with the manager and deputy manager available out of hours or in an emergency, and a detailed business continuity plan was in place.

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.

The atmosphere within the home was positive, staff spoke positively about people regardless of their support needs. Staff respected people’s protected characteristics and people could access care and support in a way that worked for them. Care planning for individual people supported equity in experience and outcomes.

Staff received training in equality, diversity and inclusion to support their understanding of inequality, the home had an equal opportunity policy available including information on dealing with discrimination.

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 and their families were involved in discussions about their future care and where they wanted to be. Where people had shared their end of life wishes, these were documented and known by staff. This included DNACPRs. DNACPR stands for ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).’ It means if a person had a cardiac arrest or dies suddenly, there will be guidance on what action should or should not be taken by a healthcare professional, including not performing CPR on the person. Some people had chosen not to discuss their end-of-life care, and this was respected and documented.

Staff had received end of life care training and could explain how they provided good end of life care, including how to support family members effected.

The home supported people with end of life care sensitively. Families were encouraged to remain with them, a bed had been purchased to enable families to stay overnight if they wished to.