Courtland 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.

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 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’s care records were detailed with personalised information about their physical, mental and social care needs.

People were supported by staff who knew them well. A relative told us, “The staff appear to know [person] well and understand their needs and how to manage [person] best.” Another relative said, “Staff have got to know [relative] really well and tend to [their] care appropriately with the knowledge and skill to fulfil [their] care as required.”

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.

We found systems were not always consistently effective. Care plans and risk assessments were not always accurate or sufficiently detailed, which meant staff did not always have clear or up‑to‑date information to follow. This impacted the continuity of care and meant we could not be assured that people consistently received coordinated and personalised support. Staff worked collaboratively across teams and with external professionals to deliver integrated support aligned with each person’s assessed needs.

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

People’s communication needs were included in their care plans. They stated whether people were able to communicate verbally and whether they had any sensory needs, such as needing to wear hearing aids or glasses.

Staff were aware of people’s communication needs. For example, we observed staff use a whiteboard to write things down for a person to support their understanding.

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 tracker to monitor complaints. The registered manager was able to describe some examples and action taken. We saw in resident meeting minutes the process was described, and people were encouraged to raise concerns.

People and relatives felt confident their feedback would be acted upon and they would be kept informed. A relative told us, “We feel very comfortable in knowing that any issues will be dealt with and we will be notified.”Another relative said, “The staff and the management at Courtland Lodge have been excellent in navigating a very difficult situation and keeping me informed at every step.”

The registered manager attended residents’ meetings. We saw minutes of these which showed useful discussion with issues raised and acted upon.

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

People had call bells in their rooms to alert staff if they needed help. The premises were fully accessible with lift access to all floors.

The provider had policies to ensure consideration of the needs of people with protected characteristics.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People who stayed in their rooms and/or were less able to express themselves were at greater risk of not having their needs met. We saw drinks available throughout the home, but people were not always supported with these. A relative told us, “I did not see the carers ensuring that the residents were drinking them and dementia sufferers like my [relative] need to be reminded.”

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’s care plans included information about their wishes. A relative told us, “[Staff] has been reassuring when I have discussed end of life care for my [relative]. We are not quite there yet but when I had questions around this, I felt confident they will be able to care for my [relative] until the end of their life.”