Philia Lodge Rest Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People and relatives were complimentary about care staff. They told us staff were kind, caring and promoted privacy and dignity when providing care. One person told us, “[Staff] are very nice, if you have a problem, you can go to them.” Another person said, “Staff are lovely.” One relative told us, “[Staff are] unspeakably patient with [family member]. They are very kind. I have no concerns surrounding the staff.”

We saw compassionate and considerate interactions took place between people and staff. Staff ensured privacy when assisting with personal care, and staff knocked on doors and waited before entering people’s bedrooms. Communication was kind, respectful and meaningful to people. One staff member told us, “I feel people living here have a good quality of life. I think we do our best and provide good care for them. I would be happy for a family member to be here.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff knew people well and told us how each person liked to be assisted and how specific approaches led to positive outcomes. For example, staff knew people’s life history, and careers which led to discussions around life experiences and knowledge. We saw people responded positively when discussing their achievements and life events. One person told us, “People are treated very, very good. The best they can be.”

Staff called people by their preferred names and staff recognised what was important to people. This included supporting people to spend time in the community where it was their wish to do so. People told us they could have visitors at any time, and this was further confirmed by their relatives.

One relative told us, “There has been a lot of thought into how to keep [person] occupied. [Staff] are observing [them], and [person] doesn’t know. It isn’t intrusive. I know [person] is not being ignored. The kitchen staff are brilliant, [person] has huge expectations, and [staff] take all [of their requests].”

Staff were not always able to fully promote people’s independence or provide enough activities to support people’s physical and emotional wellbeing.

Whilst some activities were taking place for people, there were mixed views about how these were planned and considered for people’s individual needs and interests. People, relatives and staff told us improvements were needed and welcomed more opportunities and experiences. For example, 1 person told us, “I like playing [specific game], but there doesn’t seem to be anyone to play with.” Relatives told us more meaningful activities were welcome, which included reminiscence activities and planned activities as a group.

We saw staff did try to provide group activities, such as singing, colouring and games, which people appeared to enjoy. However, this was difficult for staff as they were also needed to provide care support to people. During the assessment the manager and provider did increase the activities hours from 6 to 20 per week, and they hoped to recruit a staff member to this specific role. The manager told us this would be reviewed for effectiveness and considerations to adjust the role further would be made if needed.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff knew who to contact when people needed urgent help or support, and they demonstrated how they would raise concerns. We observed people were assisted promptly when they needed help, and call bells were responded to without delay. We observed staff to act promptly and thoroughly, following the providers procedures when a person required immediate emergency medical review.

People told us staff were responsive to their needs, and they felt confident in having this support available. We observed staff were safely deployed in busy areas of the care home, and the manager was available and visible to people, visitors and staff.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt well supported by both the manager and the provider. Staff told us they felt able to raise any concerns or queries, and felt appropriate action would be taken where it was required. For example, 1 staff member told us, “Yes, I feel valued. We get questionnaires about what is happening and how we are feeling. I feel [concerns] would be listened to and acted upon. It is good to be able to raise things if you want or feel you need to.”

Managers were available on-call outside of office hours. Staff knew how to contact them and were confident that any contact would be met in a positive and supportive manner.