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

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. However, there continued to be areas for improvement, particularly in the oversight and monitoring by leaders and the involvement of people.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care plans were not always accurate or up to date, which meant they did not consistently reflect people’s current physical, mental, emotional and social needs.

Some staff told us, and records confirmed, information had not always been reviewed in a timely way. The provider acknowledged this and informed us they were in the process of reviewing people’s records; however, they recognised this process should be ongoing and proactive rather than carried out in response to concerns.

Where care plans were reflective of individuals’ needs, they included consideration of protected characteristics and personalised requirements. Relatives described care adapting as needs changed, including through increased monitoring and the use of specialist equipment, and staff confirmed care delivery was flexible.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

We identified gaps in the consistency of record-keeping that affected oversight of people’s care, particularly in areas such as nutrition, hydration, skin integrity and daily care records. For instance, some monitoring charts had missing entries, totals were not always calculated, and records intended to track repositioning or skin checks were either incomplete or lacked sufficient detail. There were also occasions where recorded information did not clearly demonstrate that care had been delivered in line with assessed needs.

Although the provider had begun a programme of reviewing and updating care documentation, these shortfalls meant there was limited assurance that all aspects of care were being reliably recorded. As a result, it was not always evident that people’s care was consistently delivered in a way that upheld their dignity and respected their individual needs.

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

Relatives consistently described communication as reactive, with one stating, “You have to ask if you want to know anything,” and another stating, “They don’t tell you otherwise.” This reflected wider governance findings which identified delays in sharing important information. While staff were able to describe using different methods to support communication, such as large print materials, translated information and sign language, these approaches were not always consistently applied or proactively used to keep people and their relatives informed.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Relatives reported limited involvement in care planning, with comments such as, “I haven’t seen [person’s] care plan,” and “We just sign it twice a year.” Care review records supported this feedback, showing people and their relatives were not consistently involved in care planning, reducing assurance that care was developed collaboratively or reflected individual preferences and wishes. External professionals also told us, in the early stages when concerns were raised, the provider was not always working effectively in partnership with them.

Although the provider had systems in place to gather feedback, including resident meetings and surveys for people, relatives, staff and professionals, these approaches had not consistently ensured meaningful engagement or timely communication.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Although people were able to access medical professionals when required, we found they were not always supported to access all healthcare services, such as dentistry. This meant there was limited assurance that their oral health needs were consistently identified and met. While care was adapted to people’s physical needs and cognitive abilities, these gaps indicated that access to healthcare support was not always comprehensive or proactive.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Outcomes for people were not consistently positive, with some individuals experiencing the impact of earlier shortfalls in care. These included concerns relating to nutrition, personal hygiene and skin care. For example, there were instances where people’s dietary intake had not been consistently monitored, support with personal care had not always been provided in a timely manner, and repositioning or skin integrity checks were not always carried out in line with assessed needs.

Although many people and relatives spoke positively about the care provided, these inconsistencies reduced assurance that all people received a consistently high standard of care. The provider had recognised these concerns and had taken action to address them, including strengthening oversight, introducing improved monitoring systems and reinforcing care practices to promote more consistent care delivery.

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.

The provider had made improvements since our last inspection around their policies and procedures when supporting people with end of life care. Relatives involved in end of life discussions expressed confidence that care was responsive and empathetic. One stated, “We trust them not to let [person] suffer.”