Saxon Lodge Residential Home Limited

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation dignity and respect.

This service scored 40 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. People told us they did not feel they were always treated with kindness. People told us of concerns about how staff talked to and around people including staff swearing in front of people. Relatives told us, they had seen staff and the management team arguing with each other in front of people.

Relatives told us and had raised concerns with the management team that staff were tasked orientated. The registered manager had recognised staff interaction needed to be improved in January 2025 and noted on the service action plan ‘care needs to be more person centred not task orientated’. However, there was no action in place to make changes, and care staff were still expected to complete the laundry and cleaning as part of their role. Following the inspection, the provider told us they had employed staff to support with the laundry and cleaning. The provider had acted to provide additional staff training and checks on staff interactions.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. There were mixed views expressed by people and relatives about how they were treated. Some people told us, they were supported in the way they preferred, comments included, “They know how I like to get ready and what I like to do.” However, people who could become confused and anxious at times, they told us, they did not feel staff understood them. They told us, they often felt isolated and staff did not understand how their life experiences affected the way they saw things and expected things to be done.

People were supported to practice their religion, including accessing religious content on their computer. People’s dietary needs were catered for including vegetarianism and their meals were prepared separately.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Relatives told us people were not always supported to be independent. A relative told us their family member, whose room opened out onto the enclosed patio, had unlocked the door and sat outside in the evening when it was hot. The person involved had capacity to make the decision about going outside. Staff had found them and made them come inside, taking the key off them.The relative told us, they asked for the key to be put back as they were happy for them to sit outside the door. The registered manager told us, the person they had with them had previously fallen on the patio and their door should have remained locked unless staff were with them. However, it is unclear if it was agreed with relatives following their comments.

Some people went to the local shops with staff to buy presents for family birthdays and to replace their toiletries. The provider had recently bought a minibus to be used by all their care homes. People had started to go out for trips which they had enjoyed. People’s care plans included what their interests and hobbies were, however, these had not been used to inform their care and support.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Relatives told us they had been called by staff to go to the service to calm their family member when they had become distressed. A relative told us, “Staff didn’t know what to do with (relative). Staff can’t give a theme of how (relative) is.” Another relative told us they had been called to speak to the family member at night when they were anxious as staff were unsure what to do.

Relatives told us, when they were in the communal lounge, staff were often absent and they spent time reassuring people. We observed people walking around the service and in the communal lounge, needing reassurance and there were no staff present.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. However, sickness and annual leave was not always covered and time for the tasks in addition to their caring role had not been assessed. We observed staff were busy throughout our onsite visit, but they did not have time to spend with people in the lounge or in their rooms.

Staff received regular supervisions and attended staff meetings to discuss people’s care and their role. Staff were given a day’s leave when it was their birthday.