Acorn Lodge Residential 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.

Staff ensured people received person-centred care that was not task led. People’s care reflected their needs and preferences, with care records showing people receiving different levels of support in the different areas of their lives. A staff member said, “I ensure person-centred care by following individual care plans, respecting preferences, promoting choice and treating each [person] as an individual.”

If people’s needs changed, their support was adjusted. For example, 1 person had recently attempted to abscond so additional support had been put in place so they could continue to go out safely. A social care partner told us, “The home had been very versatile in responding to some of the requests we have made (on behalf of [person]).”

The manager confirmed people were regularly consulted about their support, and we saw evidence of this in monthly reviews.
 

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people with mental health conditions, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider ensured support was provided by a small team to ensure good continuity of care. Managers and bank staff from the provider’s other services had been inducted at the home and covered shifts as and when required to prevent the need for agency staff.

When people’s mental health deteriorated care was joined up, with staff collaborating with the local mental health units, to seek advice or share information during admissions and discharges.

The manager requested additional training and funding when people’s needs changed, to ensure they had access to the care and support they needed. They monitored the level of care people received and shared records with the local authority.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider had an easy read service user guide, which was supposed to help inform people with communication difficulties about what to expect upon their move into the home and include information about different aspects of the service. However, information in the guide lacked detail and did not include relevant pictorials to help support understanding for those who could not read well.

Information in care plans lacked detail about the level of support people needed with verbal and written communication. For example, a person sometimes opted not to communicate verbally with staff or other people living at the service but there was no information in their care plan about how best to communicate with them or what approaches they best responded to.

The provider gave people a contract when they first moved into the home in line with consumer rights, with clear information about their terms, conditions and charges.

Following feedback, the registered manager reviewed care plans, and ensured information relating to people's communication needs was more detailed.

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.

The home appropriately supported people to give their feedback and share ideas, using feedback as an opportunity to improve the quality of care. Resident meetings were held and people were encouraged to share their views on a range of topics, and monthly reviews were used to capture feedback on a 1 to 1 basis about staff, the home, the meals and activities. Feedback was generally positive.

The provider sent annual questionnaires which were completed by people, with staff support if required.

There was a complaints policy in place and information about how to complain was included in people’s contracts. The manager confirmed there had been no recent complaints, as concerns were spoken about informally, and action taken in response.

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

The home had easy read, pictorial signage to the lounge and shower room doors, with an easy read planner in place to support those with communication difficulties.

The manager confirmed on-call arrangements were in place to ensure managerial support was always available, including out of office hours and in an emergency. Where people needed extra support to attend appointments or to support hospital admissions, this was provided. A social care partner said, “[The home] has provided extra services when [person] required hospital admission.”

Whilst the home was not fully accessible, with a steep internal staircase; people’s mobility was assessed prior to them moving in to ensure their needs could be met. Downstairs bedrooms were made available if people’s mobility needs changed.

The provider 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 access to information about equality and diversity in the staff handbook, and attended equality training to help improve their understanding of discrimination and how to prevent it. A staff member told us, “I would always speak up for [people] if they experienced discrimination or unfair treatment and report it to senior staff.”

The manager explained how they advocated for people to have DoLS put in place, to ensure their safety. They also worked closely with health and social care partners to advocate on people’s behalf; to ensure people’s voices were heard when decisions were being made, ensuring the best possible outcomes for people.

The provider ensured 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.

Staff had access to end of life training, and people’s care plans included information about their end of life wishes. For those who did not wish to discuss this due to it being a sensitive topic, this was recorded.

The home had been working closely with social care partners to have a ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) implemented for a person whose health was deteriorating. This meant if a person had a cardiac arrest or died suddenly, there would be guidance on what action should or should not be taken by a healthcare professional, including not performing CPR on the person.