The Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last inspection we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
 

This service scored 63 (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’s care and treatment were effective because care plans were not always accurate or up to date of people’s current needs. We identified care plans did not always reflect areas such as people’s mobility and dietary needs. Although we did not find this had impacted people. This meant the provider’s systems to assess people’s care needs were not always effective to guide care planning. In response, the provider reviewed and updated care plans and reminded staff to ensure records reflected people’s current needs. However, we found staff knowledge was good about people’s individual needs. A staff member said, “We understand our team well and know how to support individuals.”

Our findings were mixed in how the provider demonstrated they planned and delivered people’s care and treatment. We identified concerns in relation to records not showing people were always repositioned when they needed to be to prevent skin health concerns. In response, the provider strengthened oversight through audits and monitoring to ensure care was delivered and recorded in line with assessed needs.

However, records showed people were supported to monitor their health and wellbeing in areas such as managing falls related risks and the risk of malnutrition.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Records showed people had been supported to access external health professionals such as community nurses.

The provider generally worked well with people and healthcare professionals to support and maintain people’s health needs. Although we identified some concerns regarding the provider’s recording of repositioning for people who required it, overall people were supported to maintain their health through regular monitoring and access to healthcare professionals. Records showed that staff carried out routine health checks, including skin integrity monitoring, and liaised with external professionals such as GPs and district nurses. One person told us they saw “district nurses weekly.”

The provider did not always effectively use monitoring systems to ensure outcomes were always consistently positive. Internal audits had not identified concerns relating to medicines, care delivery or environment. This meant we could not be fully assured of the provider’s systems to monitor the service and care delivery.

The provider supported people to understand their rights in relation to consent and respected these when delivering care and treatment. Mental Capacity Act (MCA) assessments were decision-specific, clearly recorded what had been discussed and reflected people’s responses.

Where restrictions were in place, such as CCTV, locked doors and window restrictors, these were identified and considered as part of people’s care and support. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were made where required, and records clearly showed when applications had been submitted, authorised and any conditions in place.