Highgate 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 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. We saw care plans were person centred and provided staff with clear guidance on individual preferences and needs. For example, 1 care plan we reviewed included detailed information about contact with professionals and the advice that had been sought, as well as professional input on how to manage falls. This ensured that staff had access to up-to-date and relevant information to support people safely and effectively. Relatives told us they were involved in the care planning process and felt their views were listened to. However, people using the service told us they were not always aware of their care plans and had not been given the opportunity to complete surveys or questionnaires about their care. Despite this, we saw evidence of surveys being completed, with people expressing satisfaction with aspects such as the décor and food. Staff knew the people that lived at Highgate Lodge well and were able to describe their needs to us.

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. The registered manager told us they had good relationships with other health professionals and worked in partnership to deliver people’s care. Staff confirmed they often worked closely with other professionals such as the General Practitioner (GP), District Nurses (DN), Social Workers, Pharmacists and Case Managers. Records we viewed confirmed the support Highgate Lodge received from professionals. One person told us, “I see the GP as and when I need to”. Partners told us the leaders and staff shared information with professionals.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider had systems in place to ensure people received information in a format which met their individual needs. We saw in 1 person’s care plan where English was not the person’s main language there was a visual communication aid book that was used to support staff to communicate with the person. The registered manager told us they also had the information in a language that the person understood. We saw there were pictorial menus in place to support people in making choices about their meals.

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 felt able to raise any concerns and understood who to speak with. One person told us they had no concerns or complaints. Another person told us, “If I have a concern I would speak to someone, but I have none.” The provider had a complaints policy in place. The provider had not received any complaints for us to review. We viewed a compliments book which demonstrated positive feedback from relatives.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to access care and support when they needed it and adjustments were made to support people. One person told us, “The staff would take me to my hospital appointment.” Partners told us they felt the staff supported people to access services when needed and gave examples of specialist input people had received from other health professionals. The provider ensured suitable equipment and adaptations were in place to enable people to access the care and support they needed. We saw staff had access to a variety of equipment which they used to support the needs of people living at the home.

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. The provider had a policy in place to ensure they were meeting the legal requirements and promoting and protecting the equality and human rights of people using the service, making reasonable adjustments. Staff focused on ensuring people were treated respectfully and supported people to maintain their independence. Protected characteristics were considered by staff providing care and these were included in care plans. For example, we saw care plans included information about people’s sexuality, religion and culture.

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. At the time of the inspection there was 1 person in receipt of end-of-life care. However, we were unable to find any care plans in relation to their end of life care needs. This meant there was no information or guidance to support staff to provide person centred end of life care that met this person’s individual preferences. The registered manager told us this would be addressed in response to our feedback. We saw there were Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation forms (DNACPR) on record where required and the appropriate people had been consulted in order to make DNACPR decisions.