Tamarix 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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

While basic care needs were recorded within care plans and risk assessments, we identified that some records lacked sufficient detail regarding peoples’ holistic care and support. Where guidance was provided to staff, it was generic and did not reflect the unique preferences, needs, and circumstances of each person. This limited the ability of staff to deliver individualised care and support. We discussed this with the registered manager who confirmed improvements to care plans were needed and work was already taking place to address this.

Systems and processes in place for recording people’s care were not always effective in promoting person-centred care. The system included multiple headings under which staff could document the support provided, these sections were not used consistently. There was no guidance from the provider to inform staff on which areas staff should be recording under, leading to inconsistent and patchy documentation. This issue was discussed with the provider, who acknowledged the concern and confirmed that it would be reviewed.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Whilst we found that staff engaged with some external professionals and made referrals for people, we could not be assured that people always consistently received timely support when concerns were raised by staff.

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

People's communication needs were assessed and recorded within care plans. The service was aware of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and had systems in place to support this. However, these were not always consistently implemented. For example, picture menus were not displayed on the first day of the assessment.

People and their relatives told us information about their care was shared when needed. A relative said, "Any concerns the staff always let me know. They are good at keeping us up to date with any changes."

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 and their relatives told us they felt involved in their care and support. Everyone we spoke with said they felt comfortable communicating with staff and the registered manager. People and their relatives were aware of how to make a formal complaint if needed and expressed confidence that any concerns raised would be taken seriously by the management team.

A formal complaints procedure was in place. However, we found that records did not always clearly demonstrate that the provider had responded to complaints within appropriate timescales, as outlined in their policy.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Care records did contain evidence of medical advice been sought for people. However, staff did not always take timely action to address changes in people's health needs. The management team were not always aware of concerns raised by staff to ensure the appropriate action was taken.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to 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.

Care plan reviews were not always up to date, which meant some care plans and risk assessments did not always contain up to date information about people’s health and social care needs. Staff who raised concerns about people's needs did not always feel appropriate action was taken by the team leaders or management to access the appropriate healthcare 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.

The provider ensured people's end of life wishes were explored and recorded. However, care plans contained basic information regarding the care and support required at this time and lacked sufficient detail to enable staff to offer appropriate support in line with people's wishes and preferences.