Sobell Lodge - Care Home Physical Disabilities

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 61 (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 and their relatives shared mixed feedback about how well staff understood and supported people. A person told us, “There is not anything to do, it is no quality of life. Sometimes don’t get wash or shower and do like shower. In the evening ask for snack but staff say don’t have time to sit with you.” A relative told us, “Loved one has swallowing difficulties and they haven't been choking which means the care plan is working.” Another said, “They understand loved ones likes and dislikes. But I don't think they always understand their healthcare needs and their disability.” A third relative added, “There is a turnover of staff and agency, but they do understand their needs to an extent. They are proactive in involving healthcare professionals.”

Care plans did not always contain clear or detailed information about how people’s needs should be met. For example, 1 person’s care plan stated, “It is important that I find a place to live that can help me re-learn the skills I have previously had.” However, there was no accompanying plan outlining how staff would support the person to achieve this.

Another person’s assessment identified mental health needs, yet there was no care plan describing how the service would support them. We reviewed records and found instances were people’s care had not been delivered according to their needs. For example, one staff member carrying out moving and handing tasks requiring two staff members.

Important information about people’s backgrounds, lifestyles, and histories was not always included in care plans. This limited the ability of staff, particularly newer or agency staff, to understand people holistically. Although some longer-standing staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs, they told us they had learned about people through direct work, conversations with individuals and relatives, and information shared within the team. Staff told us they do not rely on the information in the care plans as they are not accessible and out of date. A staff member said, “The care plans are not always up to date, and it is very hard to find any information in it in the folders.”

We shared our findings with the manager. They told us they were already aware of these issues and showed us their plan to review all care plans in the home, starting with those for people at highest risk.

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 saw activities planned for the month we visited which showed people had access to a range of activities and opportunities designed to support community integration and ensure their needs were met. The home had access to its own bus, which enabled people to travel into the community for a variety of activities and outings. People visited their local community as they wished. For example, 1 person was supported to visit the local pub regularly. We also saw activities plan to support people with seasonal activities, such as going shopping for Christmas. There were community groups and entertainers who visited regularly to perform and entertain people. People talked about the visit of a local dancer and an interactive storytelling session they had recently and how much they enjoyed it.

However, feedback from people and their relatives about activities in the home was mixed. A person told us, “We have much to do especially this time of year. We had a storyteller and other ones visited and we enjoyed those.” Whereas another person complained about not having enough to do or staff to take them out due to not having enough staff. A relative commented, “Loved one goes out for trips and theatres. They are using a new company for holidays, and they have researched it well.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

During the inspection, we observed that important information was displayed on the notice board, including the complaints procedure, reporting concerns, health and safety information and the service’s statement of purpose. However, these documents were not provided in accessible or alternative formats to support people who required adjustments, such as easy‑read, pictorial or simplified versions.

We also found that not everyone had their hospital passports available in formats that were accessible or meaningful to them. Care plans were likewise not produced in accessible formats, limiting people’s ability to understand their own support arrangements.

Several people told us that staff did not always understand them or how they communicated. Despite this, we identified that the provider had not ensured staff had received the necessary training, guidance or ongoing support to help them communicate effectively with people. This meant staff were not consistently equipped to meet people’s individual communication needs.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People’s experiences of raising concerns were inconsistent. Some people told us they knew who to speak to if they had a complaint and felt confident, they would be listened to. Others said staff did not always take their concerns seriously or act on them. A person told us, “Staff don’t listen to me. They make me feel like I’m trouble.”

Relatives also reported mixed experiences. While some said they would speak to the manager or deputy manager, they did not always feel issues raised were fully addressed. A relative told us: “I haven't been happy with the home, but the deputy has been trying hard and this needs to continue. I attend reviews. We are listened to now but haven't always been. Things get talked about but don’t see much change yet.”Another relative said, “I wouldn't know who to complain to or how to take my concerns forward with Leonard Cheshire.”

We saw a copy of the provider’s complaints procedure displayed at the entrance of the service. We asked for the complaints log for 2025. The service had recorded complaints from October 2025 to the time of our visit, including actions taken and learning identified. However, there were no records maintained prior to this date, despite people and relatives telling us they had previously raised concerns and complaints about various matters.

The manager acknowledged this shortfall and told us they were working to ensure that all complaints were now recorded, monitored, and acted on in line with the provider’s policy.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff were available on site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to provide support with people’s day‑to‑day needs and to accompany them to activities or appointments in the community.

People told us that, although there were sometimes delays in staff responding to them, they were ultimately able to access the care and support they required. Despite occasional waits, people said their essential needs were met and staff were generally available when needed.

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 and relatives gave mixed feedback about how involved they felt in discussions and decisions about care. A person told us about staff not always listening to their concerns and views. Some told us that involvement had recently improved. A relative said: “I am pleased with the meeting I had with someone from head office recently. They gave us hope and are looking into my loved one’s care plan and when it's done, they will involve me and share it with me.”

Other relatives felt they were not always kept informed. A relative told us: “Staff do not always share or update me.” This inconsistency meant not everyone experienced the same level of involvement or felt fully included in their family member’s care.

The provider had set up a resident representative group to support people to express their views and influence decisions within the service. People also had access to advocacy services when needed, helping ensure their voices were represented and their rights were upheld.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Care plans included information on people’s preferences where they were happy to discuss these matters, and staff were aware of the importance of approaching such conversations sensitively and at a pace that suited each person.

At the time of our visit, no one living at the service was receiving end of life care. The manager told us that, should people require this in the future, they would ensure staff received training tailored to the person’s individual needs. They also said they would involve relevant healthcare professionals and specialist services to ensure that the person received safe, coordinated and compassionate end of life care.