Eastern 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.

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

People told us they were happy with the care they received. People’s bedrooms were personalised and were decorated in line with their preferences. One person spoke positively about their room and the things they liked about it. Care was person-led. This meant people were in control of their lives and staff supported them in ways that met their individual needs. One relative commented, “I am so pleased, the Lodge provides an outstanding service.” They described how other specialist services had been unsuccessful, but their relatives’ unique needs were met by the service. One person was supported to visit a place which was special to them once a fortnight.

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 benefited from a small, long standing staff team. The service had only used agency staff very sparsely and only used 1 agency service to ensure staff were familiar with the service. Staff had a good understanding of people’s individual needs. Everyone we spoke with told us they liked the staff. People were supported to go out regularly in line with their preferences.

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

There was no easy read complaints document available for people in the communal lounge so information on how to make a complaint was not readily available for people who may have need of it. There was an easy read safeguarding document, however this was in the office. When we gave feedback, the manager acted and put an easy read policy in the lounge.

We observed staff understood people’s communication needs and communicated with them with their preferred terminologies.

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 manager told us they sought feedback from all people involved in their care by having individual discussions with them which were then documented. This was because resident meetings had been poorly attended. Responses were analysed for feedback to check for themes and trends to enable learning and improvements to be made. People told us they felt able to speak to staff if they were worried about anything but were happy with the care they received. Relatives also commented they were asked for feedback about their family member’s care.

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

People were supported to access a range of healthcare services. For example, GP, dental and a chiropodist who came into the service to support people who were less mobile or preferred not to go out. People were supported to access advocacy services where required. The environment was accessible for people and included a lift to the second floor. There was step-free access to the garden as. The provider had a food hygiene rating of 4 given before the recent kitchen refurbishment which included lowering the kitchen counters to enable people in wheelchairs better access.

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 and diversity. People’s care plans showed consideration of protected characteristics. For example, people’s religion and cultural needs were recorded. The service followed clear best practice guidelines relating to equality, diversity and inclusion, such as involving people in their care and making reasonable adjustments where required. People were supported with going out and about during their 1:1 hours individually. There was a minibus for people to use to access their appointments.

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.

People had advanced care support plans in place, which detailed people’s wishes at the end of their life. People also had goals recorded within their care plans. Staff told us, “All of the people have life skills they complete and have tasks they are working towards.”