Higher Park 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.

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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to maintaining people’s dignity and respect and providing person centred care.

This service scored 50 (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 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.

People’s care was not being planned and recorded to show how people’s social, emotional and welfare needs were to be met. People’s need for activities that addressed their individual preferences were not being identified and planned to be addressed. People who needed support to go outside the building never went outside either into the services outside areas, or to the public park beside the home.

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.

Although there was some information available to people and the community it was very limited in its scope and was out of date.The service was not supporting people and their relatives by giving them clear, accessible and detailed information before they made the decision to use this service. The service had also not been proactive in recognising the need to be aware of and be knowledgeable about the diversity of people living in Plymouth and Devon. They had not made themselves aware of the potential needs of the diverse communities living in Plymouth and South West Devon.

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

All providers of publicly-funded adult social care must follow the Accessible Information Standard in line with section 250 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The service was not fully complying with this standard.

The service had no website to provide information about the service to the public and to direct the public to the present CQC rating and report. However, the Registered Manager said they had plans to develop a website in the near future.

The service had a Service User Guide document but it was old and out of date. Leaflets about the service were of poor quality and were uninformative. Up to date accessible information about the service was not routinely given to people or their relatives before or after they entered the service. The Registered Manager said the service’s information would be updated and given to people new to the service and their relatives. If people’s first language was not English, the service relied on the service’s Information Technology (IT) to translate the existing information into the person’s preferred language. No information was presently available in any other languages or formats, including Braille or in an audio format.

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.

There was a complaints process in place and some complaints that had been made formally had been investigated. However, only formal written complaints had been accepted for investigation and no concerns raised verbally had been taken forward into a formal investigation. No written record of investigations or outcomes had been recorded. Therefore, it could not be shown that where people raised concerns or complaints they had been investigated thoroughly, and people had then been responded to about how their concerns were addressed and any changes made to the service as a result.

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

Some people’s care and support was not given in a timely way or in line with best practice, the quality standards or legal requirements. For example, some people’s care was not being delivered in a timely way or to an acceptable quality. However, in some areas of care the service was enabling access. For example, the service was advocating for access to specialist health services through the person’s GP practice. For example, referrals for services such as speech and language assessment and therapy.

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.

The care home was not using any form of theory based dementia approach to ensure that those with dementia had as good an experience as those people with capacity. People with capacity also expressed that they were not happy with the lifestyle they were experiencing with some saying they felt bored.

People were not always 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 service was experienced in supporting people who were coming to the end of their lives and had been entered onto the palliative end of life care pathway by health services. Just In Case end of life pain relief medication was stored securely by the service and was readily available to health professionals as required. However, staff had not received end of life care training and there was inadequate detail in care planning for those who were on a palliative end of life care pathway.