Healey Lodge Residential 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to how people were not supported in a person-centred way and the governance of the service.

This service scored 61 (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 care plans were up to date and reflective of people’s current needs. We observed on several occasions staff stood in communal areas but not engaging with people. People’s care plans were detailed and held records of people’s personal preferences. However, some sections of care plans were conflicting and required updating. The service was in the process of transitioning over to an electronic care documentation system.

People were able to choose the gender of staff who were delivering their personal care and pictures were displayed around the service which made the environment feel more personal. Relatives told us they had been involved in the care planning process. One relative said, “I’ve seen the care plan. The last one was filled in a couple of months ago.” Staff told us how they would ensure people received person-centred care. They said, “We make sure people have what they need and give assurances. We ask people what they like to do and encourage people where we can.”

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. Relatives told us referrals would be made to other healthcare professionals where necessary, and we saw evidence in people’s care records of referrals being made. Partners told us referrals were made and feedback was shared as appropriate. They said, “[The registered manager] and nursing staff (care staff) are very thorough with this (making referrals) and are always supportive in sharing appropriate information regarding patients (people using the service).”

Staff told us they knew people well and got to know people better by reading their care plans and by talking to people. Relatives did however mention that there was a high staff turnover. One relative said, “Staff turnover is quite fast really. I don’t think any longstanding staff are there, perhaps a couple.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. While we saw some documentation in alternative formats, other information such as the complaints procedure was not available in easy read or picture format. Some concerns were raised by relatives in relation to staff communication and language barriers and not everyone felt important information would be shared.

Staff told us the importance of GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation). They said, “Records are always kept secure, we don’t leave any paperwork out.” However, we noted on several occasions the office door was unlocked which contained personal information as well as the storeroom which held boxes full of personal data. Staff spoke of different ways they would communicate with people including flash cards. The nominated individual told us they comply with the Accessible Information Standard and that different formats of documentation were available including easy read and large print. Visual aids were used for people with limited communication or for those who become overwhelmed by too many choices.

The provider did not always act on feedback or investigate complaints thoroughly. We saw a complaints file, however, there was no evidence of any formal investigations following concerns raised or evidence of how this information was passed onto staff to help reduce future risks. We saw evidence of people’s views being sought through feedback forms, however, there was no evidence of relative or people meetings taking place. Feedback forms evidenced people requesting chair-based exercises, however, this was not taking place.

Relatives told us the registered manager was approachable. One relative said, “I haven’t got any issues. I can approach the (registered) manager with any issues. She would deal with it effectively I know that.” Another relative said, “There’s nothing whatsoever to complain about, I am full of thanks for all their (staff) support, it’s brilliant.” Staff told us any concerns would be reported to the registered manager. The nominated individual told us families were encouraged to visit as much as possible and that there was an open-door policy at this service.

The provider did not always make sure the service was accessible for people. The building had been adapted to meet people’s needs and corridors were wide and spacious, however, there was a lack of signage to guide people around. Some relatives raised concerns about the environment and felt the service needed modernising. There were 2 lounges, and 1 lounge staff named the ‘quiet lounge.’ However, this was full of clutter. This was rectified during our site visit.

Partners told us the service was accessible. They said, “The building is accessible for disabled people and there are bathrooms, shower rooms and toilets which facilitate moving and handling equipment. There are 2 lounges. The ground floor one tends to get crowded, but carers (care staff) will always bring a resident (person using the service) to a quiet area for consultation.” Contingency plans were in place should an emergency situation occur and on call arrangements were in place.

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. Most relatives felt concerns would be acted upon and listened to. Staff told us there was an inclusive culture at this service. They said, “Everyone is treated well, we include everyone.” We saw evidence in people’s care plans of reviews taking place alongside people and their relatives.

The nominated individual told us they access and recognise protected characteristics as part of individual assessments including culture, faith, language and gender identity. Feedback forms were given out to people, however, there wasn’t much room on the forms for comments or evidence of any analysis to ensure concerns were appropriately addressed.

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. Relatives told us planning for the future was discussed. They said, “[Person’s] end of life care plan has been discussed and planned.” Staff told us advanced wishes were discussed as appropriate, and the nominated individual told us they used recognised tools where appropriate for end of life discussions and that people’s wishes were adhered to. The nominated individual had knowledge of LeDeR (Learning from lives and deaths of people with learning disabilities and autistic people.)

We saw evidence in people’s care records of advanced wishes being discussed, however, people living with a learning disability did not have their goals and ambitions for the future recorded.