Valley 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 service met people’s needs.

At our last inspection, this key question was rated requires improvement, at this inspection our judgement remains the same. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider and registered manager have since the last inspection, made considerable improvements and we found the majority of the issues identified at the last inspection had been addressed.

However, we identified new issues in relation to person centred care, and there was a lack of appropriate information for people’s needs. Therefore, there is a continuing breach of personal care.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not consistently ensure people were central to all care decisions.

We saw on the first day of the inspection the dining room was not available as it was used for staff training. People had a chaotic and disrupted lunch experience as most of them ate in the lounge, which was noisy. We saw the television was on showing a western which no-one was watching and there was excess noise both from the walkie talkies staff used and the call bell system. Staff could not clearly observe everyone when they were eating in the lounge. The impact upon people’s care of having their lunch routine disrupted, especially those living with dementia had not been mitigated. The registered manager told us people had previously been consulted about the use of the dining room for staff training and an alternative dining area was normally offered. However, on this occasion people's experience was negatively impacted. The provider had not considered if staff training could be provided in an alternative location which would not impact people’s meals.

We saw staff unlock a person's bedroom door. Staff said this was to stop unauthorised people entering. The registered manager told us staff had been asked not to do this and said this was checked upon daily, during the management walkaround. Some staff were still locking some bedroom doors.

Although the provider had addressed the issues, we identified at the last inspection in relation to person centred care and we saw improvements had been made. For example, staff told us they had completed training in person centred care. People and relatives reported they participated in care planning and felt care plans reflected both people's needs and preferences. We saw people were able to exercise choice over their routine, for example in relation to their preferred time of getting up. Night staff demonstrated they understood they were only to provide personal care early in the morning where the person wanted this or where they needed support. Staff and the registered manager told us people could bath or shower as often as they wished. People chose where they wished to sit, and staff were seen to support only one person at a time during lunch.

The provider’s ongoing monitoring of the service had not identified the new issues which we saw at this inspection, which continued to have a negative impact upon people’s care experience and the delivery of fully person-centred care.

People and relatives felt they received the care they were funded for and that staff understood people's needs. They felt there was continuity of staffing.

Staff understood people's needs and were able to access relevant training tin relation to people’s health and social care needs. Professionals who provided feedback, reported they experienced good working relationships with staff.

The service did not supply sufficient appropriate, information in formats that were tailored to individual’s needs.

Most people were living with dementia; however, information was not always provided in a suitable format for their needs. The provider’s last survey showed there was mixed feedback from people about how easy it was to get around the building. We saw although there was signage in place for the bathrooms and there was directional signage for downstairs, this was lacking upstairs. This made it difficult for some people to get around independently as there were few visual cues to help them.

Staff handwrote information for people about the weekly activities onto a whiteboard. We saw it lacked any times for the activities or pictures to help people understand. Staff told us people were asked the day before for their choice of main meal. People were not however, provided with pictorial menus to support them to choose. The registered manager told us work was underway to obtain in-house photos of both the activities and the meals from the new menu in order to provide this information for people.

The service enabled people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People and relatives told us they knew how to raise any issues and felt able to do so.

The provider had a complaints policy, and we saw concerns raised had been logged and investigated in order to identify if any action was required. A relative confirmed that when they had raised an issue, action had been taken.

Peoples, relatives and staffs views were sought through surveys. The registered manager had arranged a daily management walk around to monitor all aspects of the home, in response to feedback received. We saw there was a “You said,” “We did” display of responses to visitors questions and suggestions. These included the establishment of 6 monthly reviews and the inclusion of additional information for the home’s newsletter.

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

People had level access both within and around the building which meant it was safe and accessible. People had access to a lift if required and there were adapted bathrooms. People all had an ensuite toilet within their room and some bedrooms also had an ensuite bathroom.

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.

People and relatives felt they were consulted, and we saw information about equality and inclusion was on display. Staff had completed relevant training and understood people’s needs and rights. There was a staff champion whose role was to promote all aspects of equality and diversity. Staff had received presentations from the staff champion on what equality and diversity meant for people, and its application in relation to people’s food choices. Staff also had access to the provider’s policies. People’s care plans identified their protected characteristics and any associated support they required.

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 staff provided good comfort and support to people at the end of their life. They felt involved in plans for their loved one’s care. Staff told us how they received good palliative care training and felt well supported in the provision of this care to people. People's care plans covered their wishes in terms of planning for the future and their preferences.