Hunters 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 75 (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.
Staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences and what mattered most to them. The care plans we reviewed reflected individuals’ wishes and promoted independence, choice and control.
Staff delivered person‑centred care which respected each individual’s preferences, identity and life history. People were actively involved in decisions about their care, and staff used their knowledge of each person to provide support which was dignified, meaningful and empowering. Activities and daily routines were personalised, care plans were regularly reviewed, and staff promoted independence and choice at every opportunity.
Where people displayed signs of anxiety or distress there were clear personalised plans in place to guide staff in supporting them safely and consistently.

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 provider took a proactive approach to working with people and their families to promote continuity of care and support informed choice. Staff engaged effectively with external healthcare professionals, ensuring people’s needs were met consistently, including when those needs changed.
We observed evidence of people being offered activities in the community and saw evidence of this in people’s care plans and daily notes.
Feedback from relatives regarding community access was positive. One person told us, “I like going out and the activities we do”. One relative told us, “Yes, they do a number of things (offsite) with a number of different social groups”.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
The provider ensured information shared with people was accessible and tailored to their individual needs. We observed visual supports displayed throughout the home, along with information presented in easy‑read formats.
Care records we reviewed contained detailed communication plans for each person.
Relatives told us communication from the provider was clear and consistent, and they felt well informed about any updates or changes to their loved one’s care and support.

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.
We reviewed the systems in place for staff to share their views. Staff had several opportunities to provide feedback, including through team meetings, supervisions and daily handovers, helping to ensure their views were heard and considered.
One relative told us, [Managers name] calls me to discuss anything with [person’s name] support. I feel included and listened to”.
One staff member told us, “[Manager Deputy names] are both fantastic leaders. If any of us had any concerns we would go to them, they are very inclusive and involve the team in any decisions”.
We saw examples where staff were consistently giving choice to people and listening to people’s feedback and adapting their approach based on feedback.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
The care plans we reviewed demonstrated effective partnership working with external professionals when required. The home had established strong collaborative relationships with the hospital‑based learning disabilities team, which supported people to have smoother, more informed experiences when attending hospital appointments. Staff engaged proactively with individuals, their families and relevant professionals to ensure timely access to appropriate support. This approach enabled people to receive consistent, well‑coordinated and person‑centred care in line with their assessed needs.

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.
Staff had completed training in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, which supported them to recognise, respect and uphold each person’s individual characteristics. Systems were in place to ensure people’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, reduced barriers and protected their rights, helping to ensure fair and consistent experiences and outcomes for everyone.

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.
ReSPECT forms (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) were in place where required, to ensure people’s wishes for emergency care and treatment were documented, understood and followed. These plans were subject to regular review by the GP to ensure they remained accurate and reflective of each person’s current preferences.
Care plans we reviewed also included funeral plans to ensure people’s wishes were gained and could be respected in the event these were required. One relative told us, “Funeral arrangements have been dealt with. We have talked about where to scatter ashes in the event they pass away”.