St Denis Lodge Residential 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 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.

Care plans showed person-centred detail, showing staff had worked closely with people, their relatives and others important to them to ensure all their wishes and feelings were recorded.

Staff knew people well. We observed positive interactions between staff and people with them throughout our assessment. For example, a staff member checked on and supported a person who was doing a puzzle. She had noticed a few pieces had fallen to the floor and brought the persons grab pole, she picked up the fallen puzzle pieces and reminded the person how to use the grab pole should any others fall before she came back to check on her. Staff told us they understood how best to support people.

Any changes in people’s needs were responded to and reflected in relevant electronic recording systems. People and their relatives confirmed they were actively involved with decisions about the care and support which they received.

People and relatives told us they liked the warm and friendly atmosphere of the service. People had personalised bedrooms and people seemed comfortable. One relative told us, “The staff make it feel like home, we feel they care about the whole family”.

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.

Staff understood the importance of working closely with a range of health and social care professionals to ensure consistency of care. Professionals we spoke with were positive regarding the communication with staff and management. The registered manager told us people were supported with various health appointments when required.

Health professionals visited the service monthly. This supported continuity in people’s care and treatment. The registered manager confirmed the service contacted external professionals as and when required. This meant care and treatment was delivered in a way that met people’s assessed needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive.

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

People’s communication needs were documented in their care plans. This included whether people needed information to be provided in a specific way and if so, how staff would ensure this happened. For example, when a person needed all information to be provided verbally as well as in a written format.

Care plans contained information on specialised aids some people required, for example hearing aids. Staff supported people with cleaning their glasses and maintaining communication aids.

The registered manager told us they could source information in a format tailored to individual’s needs, for example in large print. When required staff members supported people to read their letters and other correspondence.

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 provider had a policy and procedure in place that set out the steps on how to make a complaint. The registered manager had a system in place to ensure they had an effective overview and could respond to people’s feedback promptly.

People and relatives confirmed they felt confident in the service taking appropriate actions should they raise a concern or complaint.

The provider was proactive in working with people to find solutions to concerns raised before a formal complaint needed to be made. People, their relatives and others important to them confirmed they had meaningful involvement in service development and improvement through regular check ins, resident meetings and open communication. A relative told us, “I am extremely satisfied with communication from staff – it is a very strong positive aspect of life at the service.”

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

People were supported to access external services whenever they needed them. When someone was unable to attend appointments or activities in the community, arrangements were made for the support to be provided within the service. For example, when people could no longer attend church services, a clergyperson would visit them at the service.

People were consulted regarding various activities available at the service. This supported them to overcome any accessibility barriers, ensuring everyone had equal opportunities to participate

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.

Staff treated people fairly and there were no concerns raised about discrimination. Staff had completed equality and diversity training and were committed to respecting people’s wishes and reducing the risk of exclusion.

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.

Where people had expressed wishes for their end-of-life care, these were documented in their care plans. This included details such as who to contact and any specific requests, for example, religious needs to be met. People who had do not attempt resuscitation orders (DNACPR) had these clearly documented on the provider’s electronic care planning system.

The registered manager told us conversations about end-of-life wishes were handled with care, dignity, and respect. This allowed people to express their wishes clearly but if a person had not expressed any wishes this would be revisited during their care plan review.