Valley Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives consistently described care as compassionate and person-centred. Feedback highlighted staff’s patience, kindness and welcoming approach, with one relative noting that staff showed as much care for families as they did for people.

Staff also spoke positively about their roles, describing a strong sense of commitment and pride in the care they provided, which was reflected in their approach to supporting people.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Feedback about support with personal presentation and clothing was mixed. Some relatives raised concerns clothing was not always managed effectively, including instances of people wearing the same clothes for extended periods or items being mixed up in wardrobes. This indicated that personalised care, particularly in relation to dignity, appearance and individual preferences, was not delivered consistently across the service.

However, other relatives described staff as knowing people well and forming meaningful relationships, with one commenting that they were “like a second family.” This reflected the positive connections staff had developed with people, despite inconsistencies in aspects of personalised care delivery.

People were not always empowered to make meaningful choices about their daily routines, care interventions, diet, mobility, and social activities. A relative said, “There could be a lot more going on here, I just feel people could have more stimulation”. Staff were aware of people's communication needs but records did not consistently reflect their preferences.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Relatives consistently described a timely response to immediate needs, particularly in relation to call bell requests or when individuals were unwell and required additional support. One relative commented, “They come instantly when he presses the bell.” We also observed staff to be responsive to people’s day-to-day needs, such as offering drinks and snacks and engaging individuals in meaningful conversations.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Some staff told us, and records confirmed, that they did not always feel able to raise concerns safely. This suggested wellbeing and confidence to speak up was not consistently supported, which may have impacted how empowered staff felt in their roles. Despite this, other staff described feeling supported through supervision and training, with one member of staff stating, “Supervision is done regularly and I am supported by my seniors.”