Charnwood 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 71 (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. Care plans supported staff to be aware of people’s individual needs and social histories which helped them to understand the person and deliver the right care and support. People had confidence to reflect their personalities and choices, for example, through their appearance and the décor of their rooms. People had allocated keyworkers who met with them regularly and reviewed what they were happy about, anything they wanted to change and what they wanted to achieve. Records showed people’s voice was at the centre of this process. For example, when a person was asked if they were sufficiently occupied the person stated, “I am (years of age) and do not need to be going here there and everywhere.” This enhanced a person centred approach.

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. Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure that typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against. They recognised when people were at risk from poorer experiences and worked to ensure everyone was included and provided advocacy where needed. For example, building trust and confidence for new experiences, providing support and guidance for people to use community resources and services and establishing links and consistency with GP services to help people access healthcare.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s care plans included information around their preferences for communication and how information should be shared with them. Guidance included environmental issues, such as giving information in a quiet area. We saw staff shared information in a variety of ways including picture cards, gestures and signs.

The provider made it as easy as possible for people to share their views and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support and this was reflected in their care plans. However, relatives did not feel fully involved in their family member’s care. One relative told us, “There are no relative meetings, no emails or newsletters to keep me informed as to what was going on in the home, and I have had very little input into [Name’s] support plan”. A second relative told us, “There are no other forms of contact with the home, in relation to relatives’ meetings, or newsletters, but I always get a phone call if any issues arise. I have had little, if any, input into [Name’s] support plan”. Relatives told us they were confident to raise any concerns or complaint with their family members’ keyworker or the management team. A relative told us, “If I had any major issues [Registered manager/keyworker] would always listen to what I had to say, and any issues would be sorted out quite quickly.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff had good working relationships with local health professionals and knew how to contact the appropriate teams to support people when the need arose. Staff were quick to respond to changes in people’s needs and support people to contact routine and specialist services when required. For example, staff liaised with mental health services when a person experienced a decline in their wellbeing and supported them to access more intensive support during this time. Staff worked with health professionals to understand people’s tolerances and experiences to enable them to access routine and specialist services.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People were supported to access community resources and services. Staff provided advocacy for people to ensure their voices were heard in all aspects of their care, treatment and support.

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. Care plans showed people and those important to them were given the opportunity to discuss their end of life wishes and care plans reflected their wishes where they had made decisions. For example, where one person was unable to make decisions about their end of life care, their known choices and preferences were recorded through best interest processes. People’s care plans reflected planning for their future life development, with short term goals and a progression towards longer term aspirations.