Pine Lodge 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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 and their relatives were involved in decisions about people’s care. For example, people chose how they spend their day. One staff told us, “People decide where they want to spend their time. We encourage them to go …. for activities but not all of them want to.” We observed some people remained in the smaller lounge and were supported to do so. Where people had expressed a need this was met. For example, one person asked staff to ensure a specific care need was met by someone of the same gender as themselves and this was respected.

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.

People were supported by a stable staff team who were motivated to provide kind and considerate care. Staff had access to good guidance and care plans which enabled them to provide a consistent level of care. Staff understood when to refer people to health and social care partners if their needs changed.

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

Peoples care needs had been assessed so staff knew how people needed to be supported. Information was accessible to people. For example, people and their relatives knew how to complain or feedback about their care. Staff had also thought about other areas and types of communication. For example, one relative told us, “The juice has stickers on to tell you when it’s been changed. The little things build up, since last year it’s the little things, it gives the overall impression of a happier place.”

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.

There were meetings for residents and relatives if they chose to attend. People were asked for their views about areas such as the menu and activities. The registered manager was also accessible, and people and their relatives told us they discussed concerns with them if needed. For example, one relative told us they’d raised concerns about communication, and this was sorted by the registered manager. There was a complaints system in place if people wanted to complain. When complaints had been raised, they had been investigated. Learning from complaints had been considered and shared with staff as and when was appropriate.

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

There were systems in place to ensure people had access to health and social care support if this was needed. For example, there was a regular visiting health professional who could prescribe treatment if people were unwell. People also had access to routine services such as foot care and getting their hair cut.

Staff and leaders demonstrated an exceptional and innovative approach to understanding the experiences of people most at risk of inequality. They actively used this insight to identify barriers and deliver highly personalised care, support and treatment that promoted equitable experiences and outcomes.

Staff went above and beyond in recognising the importance of mealtimes and dining as a source of pleasure, and wellbeing. They carefully considered how disability and age-related changes could affect a person’s ability to eat and their enjoyment of food, particularly for people who required a modified diet due to safety. The concept was initiated by the provider. Staff had showed a clear passion driving forward delivery and ensuring meals were made in a way which encouraged people to eat well and was whole home based. Staff told us it was important that residents who needed a modified diet received meals which were not only safe but also visually appealing, dignified, and inclusive, greatly enhancing people’s overall dining experience.

The focus on dietary inclusion extended beyond modified diets. For example, ensuring there were options which were healthier for people who had dietary needs, such as diabetes, as part of the core daily offering available to everyone. The service had reviewed the relationship between food, health and wellbeing and introduced thoughtful changes to increase nutritional density wherever possible. This supported people with reduced appetites to maintain their health while preserving choice and enjoyment. For example, food was thickened using nutritious food rather than through adding artificial additives or saturated fat dense ingredients.

Relatives were invited to an event to learn about the new approach to nutrition and hydration to increase their understanding of their loved one’s dietary health needs. People’s families were invited to learn about texture modification of food and drink and the important role it to play in some people’s safety. Staff and relatives could then work together to support people. One relative told us, “The food here is amazing. I can see the difference; at [the last care home, my relative] didn’t eat. [My relative] loves the food.”

Learning had been shared with local health and social care professionals in a training event where staff were asked to showcase how the service had developed and was delivering best practice.

There had also been a ‘come dine with me’ event where people and friends and family had been invited to eat a 3-course meal together as a fine dining evening.

Staff were using best practice tools effectively to support people to eat safely prior to needing professional intervention or diet modification. A health and social care professional told us since the changes were brought, in referrals, for external support with nutrition had lowered and staff had ‘implemented a very good fortified menu to support residents.’ This feedback demonstrated there had been a positive impact of the service’s personalised and innovative approach.

The environment had been refreshed in areas to improve dementia friendliness. This is, for example, where decoration is used to help people orientate their way around the building

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.

There was information in people’s care plans setting out their advance wishes and preferences where appropriate. Where people had not been able to discuss this family members were invited to do so. There was information such as what people’s preferences for emergency treatments were, if and when people wanted hospital treatment if whether to attempt resuscitation if the person needed this to sustain life. People had also been offered the opportunity to discuss funeral preference and plans if they wanted to. Staff had training on end-of-life care, so they knew how to support people when the time came.