Sidney Avenue Lodge Residential Care 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.

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.

We observed staff actively promoted person- centred care when working with people. Staff offered choice and respected people’s wishes and routines. Staff knew how to raise any concerns if there were any changes to people’s mental or physical health.

Whilst people received person- centred care, care plans were not always person- centred or up to date. The registered manager confirmed care plans had not been regularly reviewed. The home was also in the process of transferring care plans electronically. Where care plans had been printed and in files in the office, these were not the same as the care plans online. The registered manager told us, “Staff have access to updated online ones, there are some that have not been printed off yet.” However, some staff told us they did not have access to the online system. We also raised this with the registered manager who told us they would check the access for staff. This meant staff may not always have up to date information on people’s care and support needs.

People’s care plans did not always contain enough information around people’s histories, personal likes and dislikes and how they wanted to receive their care. The registered manager told us these issues had also been noted by the local authority, and they would be reviewing care plans.

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.

The home had a good relationship with external care providers such as GP’s, learning disability teams and the Care Homes Assessment Team (CHAT). This enabled staff to make sure people received continuity of care when needed.

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

All people living at the home were able to communicate verbally. Staff knew people well and understood how people understood information. For example, where people needed information to be discussed slowly and without using long words. Some people required information to be repeated several times to help them understand. We observed staff reading a letter with a person and explaining what it was and what it meant for the person.

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.

Relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint but would talk to the staff and registered manager who they always found responsive to any concerns.

We observed people were fully involved in their care and staff worked in collaboration with them. We saw staff speaking with a person following a healthcare appointment and explaining what the outcome had been and asking how they felt about it.

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

People were able to access care, treatment and support when they needed and in a way that worked for them. This promoted equality, helped remove barriers or delays and protected their rights.People had hospital passports which explained how people wanted to receive care and contained important information about them. However, we noted these needed more detail to be person- centred.

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 provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics. Staff had received training in equality and diversity and were aware of potential barriers people with a learning disability faced.

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 relatives, where appropriate, were consulted about end-of-life care. Where people were willing to discuss this, this was documented in their care plans. Staff also respected people’s wishes if they did not wish to discuss this.