Castor 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.

This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We found that people were supported with their religious and cultural needs and the home was easily accessible. We saw evidence that concerns were followed up and referrals were made to relevant health care professionals.

However, we found that end of life care planning, including guidance around anticipatory medication was not always in place. We also found that staff were not always recording people’s preferences or how they were spending their day.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Daily records did not record people’s choices and lacked evidence that the staff were providing person-centred care. This meant it could be difficult to know if people were being supported in line with their preferences and interests.

However, people and their relatives told us that they were involved in care planning. We observed interactions from staff that showed they knew people well and respected their choices.

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.

People told us that although there had been a turnover of staff, they still saw consistent carers that they got on well with. One person said, “the same ones come most times”. There was evidence that concerns were followed up and referrals were made to relevant health professionals. Health practitioners told us the home was happy to learn and work with them. However, daily records did not provide consistent records to enable staff to understand how needs were being met.

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

People were provided with important information in their service user guide, on notice boards around the home and during resident meetings. Staff told us that information could be made available in braille, large print and translated into different languages. Pictures, objects and signs were used to support people who could not communicate verbally.

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 saw evidence that senior staff had taken on feedback and listened to suggestions from people. For example, when someone said they would like a breakdown of the management team the manager put a display with staff pictures and names in the reception. Information about how to complain was on notice boards around the service. We saw evidence that complaints were responded to in full. The service completed 6 monthly people’s surveys which were evaluated, and produced “You said, we did” feedback. Customer comments records were seen where people had recorded feedback.

The management had been arranging reviews with people and their families to update their care plans.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We found every area of the home to be accessible. We saw evidence that referrals were made to other services when required. The service arranged trips out for people. However, due to the conflicting and out of date information in care plans it was difficult to understand the services currently involved to meet service user needs and post treatment support in place.

Staff receivedperson centred, positive behavioural support and dementia training to ensure they had the right approach when supporting people. However, not all staff had equity and diversity training.

People’s religious and cultural needs were supported. We saw pictorial bath signs on bathrooms and people had personal items, photos and pictures in their rooms. People’s individual nutritional requirements were met and the head chef worked hard to ensure that people with dietary restrictions could still enjoy nice food. However, personalised information in care plans was not always up-to date. This made it difficult to see if people were regularly asked about their preferences and interests.

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.

End of life care plans were not detailed enough and did not consider people’s end of life wishes and considerations surrounding final days of life. For example, their wishes for their environment, family support and spirituality. . The senior management team were reviewing care plans to make sure they were detailed.End of life care training was completed by care staff and there was an end-of-life champion to enhance the home’s end of life care.