Archived: Bethany 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

This means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate.  This meant services were not planned or delivered in a way that met people’s needs.

We found the provider in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 25 (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 and staff in the service had a lack of understanding of the complexities of individuals and of how best to meet their needs in a safe way whilst also meeting their preferences.The impact of the lack of awareness and approach to autism meant higher anxieties, and a higher risk of injury to people in the service.

The provider was not effective in ensuring documented needs were reflected in people's experiences of care. The lack of focus on the complex needs of individuals had a detrimental effect on their health and wellbeing.

The provider failed to ensure the provision of staff was effective to deliver person centred care. The provider was not effectively delivering the 1:1 care people had been assessed as needing to meet their needs. This meant people were left unsafe and at risk of further harm and distress. We saw examples of this throughout the inspection.

The provider did not have the necessary understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people in the service meaning care was not always effective or promoted continuity.

The observed experiences of people did not reflect consistent or positive care. Whilst some people were able to advocate for themselves, others were not and we were not assured of how people’s wishes were understood, listened to and met.

We observed mixed interactions from staff towards people living at Bethnay Lodge. Some staff were positive and engaged with the people they were supporting, while other staff did not make adequate attempts to engage even when people were showing increasing signs of anxiety and distress or whilst in the presence of the inspection team. This lack of continuity in approach meant varying experiences of care for people at Bethany Lodge.

This did not promote or support a good standard of care for people. People were not engaged in l activities they chose and there were limited opportunities for people to actively engage with their care and with their peers. There was an increased risk of isolation and people were not provided with adequate opportunities for integration into the wider service and community.

The Accessible Information Standard aims to ensure that people who have impaired communication receive the support and systems needed to ensure effective two-way communication. The provider had not made provision for people's communication needs and this meant the approach of staff and the assessment and delivery of care did not ensure the involvement or support the understanding from the people living at Bethany Lodge.

The provider did not have effective systems and processes in place to ensure people could share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People were not supported by staff to be involved in decisions about their care. People were not always asked to contribute to care plans and risk assessments. One relative told us how they had asked to review how their loved one was spending the day and had concerns over the lack of “emotional mental stimulation” but did not feel supported to “contribute” to their loved one’s care.

There was no effective mechanism to gather and then act upon feedback from people in the service and their family members. This meant opportunities to learn from people’s experiences and improve the outcomes for people were being missed.

The provider did not make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider did not have effective oversight in the management of risks with gaps and inconsistencies in documentation we reviewed which was available to staff. This meant the provider had not ensured an accurate and complete record of people’s care was available.

People were not always provided with an opportunity to access and engage in activities and stimulation in the home, as well as access to the community outside of the service. There was limited evidence of how people were actively supported to reduce the risk of social isolation.

The provider did not demonstrate an approach that considered people’s experiences. There were no systems or approaches in place to engage with people about their experiences of care or to review and improve the outcomes for people who were further disadvantaged due to the complexity of their care needs.

This meant opportunities to improve people’s experiences and outcomes were missed. This had not been identified by the provider as a concern until the CQC inspection.

People did not have access or support to experience new opportunities to enhance life skills. At the time of potential transition to other services for people this did not maximise or recognise people's potential.

People did not have wishes or aspirations discussed or recorded and there was no demonstration of an approach to care which promoted future goals and objectives for people.