Wessex Lodge Nursing 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 68 (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. While leaders demonstrated a commitment to person-centred care and actively promoted holistic and inclusive approaches, feedback from some relatives and staff highlighted inconsistencies in how person-centred care was delivered in practice.

Relatives expressed concerns about a decline in the quality of care over the past year, noting reduced efforts to support people with mobility and social engagement. Some felt staff did not always encourage people to leave their rooms or participate in communal activities, and care had become more task-focused. Comments suggested that people were sometimes left in bed for periods of time and opportunities for meaningful interaction, such as conversation or creative activities, had diminished. This feedback suggested care was not always consistent in supporting people’s individual needs or preferences.

During the inspection, we observed people being supported to take part in a range of group and individualised activities in communal areas. These included quizzes, bingo, musical entertainment, puzzles, card games, and one-to-one conversations. These activities reflected efforts to promote social engagement and provide stimulation tailored to individual interests.

The registered manager shared their intention to foster a culture of teamwork across all departments, and this was reflected in much of the staff feedback, with many describing a collaborative and supportive atmosphere. However, some staff noted that this culture was not consistently demonstrated by all team members and could vary depending on who was on shift. This was also reflected in the feedback from relatives. One relative told us, "I just feel sometimes, why don’t the nurses provide more direct support, for example, helping out with the lounge cover."

The registered manager had openly acknowledged embedding consistent person-centred care across the service was a work in progress. They demonstrated an understanding that whilst positive practices were in place, ongoing development and staff support was in progress to fully embed these practices and to support consistency. We saw evidence of action being taken to address these concerns.

The provider demonstrated a strong understanding of the diverse health and social care needs of people and their local communities. Care was delivered in a way that supported choice, continuity, and flexibility. People were supported to access relevant health and social care services and had access to the information they needed to make informed decisions about their care.

Staff worked collaboratively with external professionals, including GPs, social workers, and mental health services, to ensure care was co-ordinated and responsive to people’s assessed needs. This joined-up approach contributed to continuity in care and supported people to remain in control of planning their support.

The manager showed awareness of inequalities in access to healthcare, particularly for older people, and described how they had advocated for individuals to ensure their quality of life was not compromised by assumptions based on age. This reflected a holistic and inclusive approach to care planning and delivery.

The provider supported communication and information-sharing in formats tailored to people’s individual needs. People were asked about their preferred methods of communication and were provided with information in alternative formats when required. One relative told us, "His speech is not very good so hard to understand. They will sit and listen. I’ve watched them, they sit there until they get out of him what he wants."

Staff used a range of communication techniques to support people effectively. For example, when engaging with people living with more advanced dementia, staff maintained eye contact, spoke slowly and respectfully, and allowed time for responses. Staff also demonstrated appropriate approaches when communicating with people with hearing impairments, including kneeling to maintain eye-level contact.

The provider created multiple opportunities for people and their relatives to share feedback and express their views. This included visible complaints procedures, invitations to meetings, and active engagement from leaders. These practices supported a culture of listening and responsiveness which helped to ensure care was inclusive and information was accessible.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback, raise complaints, and contribute ideas about their care, treatment, and support. People and relatives described the registered manager as approachable and responsive, with comments such as, “Any problems or if I saw anything I didn’t like, [Registered Manager's name] is brilliant and the nurses are good, they would sort anything out” and “Never had any difficulties getting hold of [Registered Manager's name] when needed. Can email and they reply.”

Staff involved people in decisions about their care and communicated changes made as a result. Feedback mechanisms included formal processes such as surveys and questionnaires, as well as informal conversations and visible feedback boards, such as ‘You asked, We have done’. People felt confident that concerns would be taken seriously and addressed promptly, with one person saying, “Staff definitely listen and look out for you … I am sure if there was a worry the staff would sort things for you.”

The provider used newsletters, meetings, and ad hoc opportunities to gather feedback and keep people informed. These practices supported a culture of openness and transparency.

While people felt confident raising concerns and described the provider as responsive, feedback also highlighted areas where care delivery could be more consistent. The provider’s openness to feedback and commitment to improvement were evident throughout the inspection. We have reported on this in more detail elsewhere in the report.

The provider ensured that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed, when they needed it. Staff and leaders demonstrated a clear understanding of how to access specialist health and social care services, including referrals to external professionals such as speech and language therapists (SALT), when required. This supported timely and appropriate care tailored to individual needs.

Arrangements were in place to ensure staff could respond effectively during emergencies, even when a member of the leadership team was not on site. This included a clear on-call rota and established emergency protocols, which helped maintain continuity and responsiveness in care delivery.

These practices reflected the provider’s commitment to removing barriers to access and ensuring care was delivered in line with equality and human rights requirements.

While leaders and staff demonstrated a clear commitment to supporting people’s rights and wellbeing, shortfalls in some care and risk management records limited the provider’s ability to consistently tailor care and support to individuals. These gaps increased the risk that the service could not reliably identify or respond to the needs of people most likely to experience inequality in outcomes.

Although the provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements in principle, the lack of consistent person-centred delivery, particularly in relation to documented capacity assessments and best interest decisions, meant that barriers to equity were not always removed in practice. This impacted the provider’s ability to promote equality, protect people’s rights, and ensure equitable experiences and outcomes across all groups.

The registered manager demonstrated awareness of the potential for age-related discrimination and advocated for ensuring older people had equal access to healthcare services. They recognised the importance of challenging assumptions that might lead to reduced expectations around quality of life or access to treatment, such as decisions about surgical interventions. This proactive stance reflected a commitment to promoting fairness and dignity, and to ensuring that age was not a limiting factor in the care and support people received.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, including end-of-life care, in a way that allowed them time to make informed decisions. Staff and leaders demonstrated compassion and a clear understanding of the importance of dignified, person-centred care at the end of life. Their approach extended to supporting relatives, showing kindness and care for everyone involved.

Staff showed sensitivity when discussing end-of-life wishes, and we saw evidence of these preferences being documented in care planning records. One relative told us, “EOL, done that, GP was part of that and said no interventions, or hospital, not a hard conversation. It is the warmth and transparency.” This highlighted the provider’s ability to facilitate open, respectful conversations that empowered people to express their wishes.