Conifer 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

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 75 (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 were involved in the shaping of their care plans. They told us they were happy to speak to staff should they want anything changing. Relatives echoed this and said, where appropriate, they had been consulted on decision making. Care plans provided staff with guidance on how to deliver care that was person-centred and unique to everyone. An extensive list of likes and dislikes, especially in relation to food, which was important to people, was available. People’s histories had been obtained by staff, including any cultural or religious needs, so these could be met correctly. One person had previously had an adapted menu to meet their specific needs.

People’s care plans were regularly reviewed and updated to ensure they remained relevant.

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 provided with the care they wanted and could live their lives how they wished. People and their relatives spoke positively about the relaxed atmosphere at the home, and how people were encouraged to undertake activities they enjoyed. Staff had good working relationships with both external professionals and the community to ensure robust integration and continuity and care provision for people.

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

Staff gave us examples of how they adapted their communication with people to meet their specific needs. For example, when one person was experiencing distress, staff needed to ensure they spoke calmly to the person in order not to escalate their distress. The registered manager told us that documents could be provided in different formats, for example, large print or easy read, if needed.

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.

People were regularly encouraged to give their views on their care and how the home should operate. For example, people were given opportunities to express what they would like to eat, and the menu would be formulated around their needs and wishes. There were also regular resident’s meetings which gave people another opportunity to give any views. People were aware of who the management team were and told us they would be able to raise any concerns they have if needed. Relatives agreed with this, telling us, “If I had any concerns I would tell them, any of the carers, but I don’t have to worry.”

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

The registered manager and staff had a good working relationship with external agencies, such as the social work and mental health teams and GPs, to ensure good access for people who lived at Conifer Lodge. We received positive feedback from professionals who work with the home. One told us, “Staff work well and provide clear and timely communication. They are good at collecting information and handing over issues that affect the people who live there.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to encounter inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The home had a keyworker scheme in place where people were allocated a specific person to get to know them and their goals. This enabled additional information to be gathered which was not known previously, and support could be put in place to minimise any inequity in outcomes. The registered manager regularly checked the recovery worker notes to assess what time was being spent where. They could then address any shortfalls, for example, if one person was receiving less support than another when they should be getting more. This promoted equity across the people living at the service where appropriate.

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. Any decisions or wishes people had expressed were documented in their care plans. Where people had chosen not to have these discussions, this was also respected. Those who had do not attempt resuscitation (DNACPR) forms in place, these were clearly available in their care folders.