Evergreen Lodge

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate. This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.
The service was in breach of legal regulation 10 in relation to dignity and respect.

This service scored 35 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. The language used within some care plans was not personalised, with terms such as “non-compliant” and “disengaged” being used. This does not reflect person-centred care and can lead to people being stigmatised. This indicated that people were not always treated with dignity and respect and that care was not always delivered in a way that reflected people’s needs and experiences.
We observed staff discussing people’s personal information in communal areas which did not protect people’s privacy. Additionally, we observed people being weighed in the communal areas with staff discussing out loud how much people weighed.
However, we did also observe positive interaction between staff and people living at the service. Family members we spoke with where happy with the support their relative was receiving, they told us, “‘They [staff] are Lovely, they are very good with [person]”. A person living at the service told us, “It’s alright here.”

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds or protected characteristics. There was no evidence people were involved in their care planning or reviews. There was also no evidence alternative methods had been used to support people to make decisions or contribute to the planning of their care.
Restrictions implemented evidenced people were not treated as individuals with a blanket approach to care, activities of daily living and support. For example, a shower rota allocating a weekly shower day and set smoking times, which we observed to be rigidly implemented.
 

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.
The service was rigid within its routine, a professional told us, “It is very institutionalised in its practices.” Due to the routines that were in place this limited people’s freedom and ability to control their lives and make their own choices. One person living at the service told us, “I can’t go out for a smoke of a night, it’s not allowed.” Where people received 1:1 support they were able to access the community however for other people living within the service opportunities to access the community were limited.
The environment was not conducive to supporting people living with dementia and did not promote independence, we observed limited signage to orientate people. This meant people were not being encouraged to retain their skills and independence.
 

We observed one person who was visibly distressed. A staff member advised the person to take a walk along the corridor. The person continued to show signs of distress and remained upset. The staff member then told them to go to their bedroom for a walk, without any further support, reassurance or interaction.
Care plans for some people recorded they required structured routines to support their mental health and emotional wellbeing. There was no clear evidence to show who had implemented these routines, the rationale for the decisions made, or that the people were involved in the decision or their relatives if required.
Relatives we spoke with when asked about timely support commented they felt support was met if the staffing levels were adequate. One relative stated, “‘Generally, but there are a lot that needs extra help’. Other feedback included, ‘I think if nobody is off sick its ok, but sometimes it is very stretched.’
We observed some people waiting for support as there was no staff available due to supporting other people. Whilst staff were assigned to units, they relied on staff on other units to provide support to people with personal care. This was particularly evident during the night.
 

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 had not received appropriate training to enable them to deliver personalised care. Staff we spoke with felt rushed at their job. Some staff members we spoke with did not feel they had enough time to support people. When speaking to 2 staff members, they raised concerns they were now behind with the schedule of the day implemented by the management which included personal care due to not having enough time.
However, some staff told us the registered manager was responsive and supported them well. This included undertaking supervisions.