Queens Lodge Nursing 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 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.

Staff 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.

People received care that was tailored to their individual needs and preferences. Care plans were person-centred and included details about likes, dislikes and daily routines. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people’s preferences and supported independence wherever possible. People told us they felt happy and well cared for, and interactions observed were kind and respectful.

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.

Care was delivered consistently and staff worked well with external professionals. Records showed timely referrals and collaborative working.

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

People were given information in a way which met their communication needs. Information was presented in different formats such as large print, verbally or by using agreed hand gestures. Staff knew people’s communication needs well and people were supported in line with the Accessible Information Standards.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Staff listened to people and acted on concerns promptly. People and relatives described the new manager as approachable and responsive, and staff, people and relatives confirmed they felt heard and supported. People were offered choices throughout the day, including meals and activities. People and relative involvement in the monthly care plan reviews were limited. The provider assured us this would be addressed in the near future.

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

The service was accessible and inclusive. People and staff told us there was no discrimination, and adjustments were made for individual needs, such as texture-modified diets. The environment was fully accessible and safe.

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 experienced positive outcomes and reported feeling safe and well cared for. Feedback from people and relatives was overwhelmingly positive, and highlighted improvements since the new manager’s appointment. Staff promoted dignity and independence, and people were supported to make choices.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they would have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

While care plans were generally person-centred, planning for future needs was inconsistent. None of the care plans we reviewed had detailed end of life wishes recorded, although one person was actively at the end of their life. The general manager responded immediately to this to put this information in place.