Heathgrove 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 remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 were at the centre of all their care and wellbeing needs.

We found 3 people in the morning being brought to the lounge after breakfast who had stained shirts and tops. Some people had historic stained bedding. Some people also had a lot of incontinence items stored in their bedrooms in non-discreet places. People’s interests, past lives, cultural and diverse needs had not been explored with people. The planned events and social experiences on offer were not always tailored to people’s interests and past lives. One person’s relative said, “(Name of relative) is bored to tears, they never go out, for them it is the same thing every day.”

When we raised these issues to the manager and provider, they took action to resolve the bedding and incontinence equipment issues and made plans to address the assessing and checking people’s cultural and diverse needs were met in the future. However, these issues should have been identified and addressed through their own audits.

The manager and provider were providing person centred care in other ways, there was a culture of staff being personable to people, we saw this happening and people told us this happened. Staff were responsive when people were unwell or needed something. The provider had employed a new activity co-ordinator who was leading on a number of events which people spoke well of.

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.

Records showed and people and professionals confirmed with us people’s health needs were being met, both the physical and mental health needs. Care plans and actions were tailored to the specific needs of each individual. The manager and senior staff monitored these needs to check these needs were improving or being managed well. They also checked the allocated health professionals were also monitoring and reviewing these people’s needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information, but these were not in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People had care plans in relation to their physical care needs and health needs. However, these were all in a standard format, work had not been completed to help people have information such as their care plans, how to make a complaint, their welcome packs in formats which were tailored for those living in the home.

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 needs.

People said they had raised issues with the manager and senior staff. There were regular ‘resident’ meetings, and the new manager was reaching out to people’s relatives to get their views and involve them in the home. Following our feedback about some of the social opportunities on offer and cultural needs, the manager sent us ‘resident meetings’ minutes which showed they had started to talk with people about how they wanted to address these issues, they were seeking people’s views and input regarding this.

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

There was a positive culture of staff and the manager advocating for people to obtain the health care they needed. Staff and managers were responsive when people fell, acquired a pressure sore, lost weight, and started choking when they ate. We saw records which showed how these needs were reviewed and monitored by senior staff. 2 health professionals praised the care staff and the senior care staff for their knowledge of people’s current needs and issues when they visited, which assisted them in ensuring they offered the right health support.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to all the information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Staff and managers were responsive to all people’s health and physical care needs. However, people’s cultural and diverse needs were not given equal priority. Further work was needed to ensure those from diverse backgrounds felt fully at home at Heathgrove Lodge, and they were involved as much as they wanted to be in the ‘community’ within the care home.

People were not always 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.

The provider and manager were not actively considering this part of people’s lives. No one was actively at the final stage of their lives, but work was not being completed to try and prepare for this time. Work was also not being recorded about starting these conversations with people and building people’s confidence and trust to talk about this part of people’s futures. We fed this back to the provider and manager who said they would act here.