White Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last inspection we rated this key question Good. At this inspection the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them. People were assessed prior to moving to the service to ensure their needs could be met.

Some people and their relatives told us they were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care. Comments included, “I have seen a care plan, and I’ve signed it; they keep it in the office, I don’t have a copy” and “[Name] has a care plan, but I don’t think we have had a review.” Some people’s relatives told us they had never been involved in assessing or planning people’s support needs.

People's care plans contained a range of assessments related to their physical, mental and emotional wellbeing, and these were reviewed on a regular basis. However, where people experienced heightened emotions or distressed behaviours the care plans and risk assessments did not always detail clear strategies for staff to implement to support the person. Despite this, staff we spoke with were able to describe to us how they supported people during periods of anxiety or agitation. We discussed this with the registered manager who said they would review and update the plans accordingly.

Staff told us they could easily access people’s care plans, and they were kept updated with changes in people’s needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with current evidence-based good practice and standards. Nationally recognised assessment tools were used. Concerns were escalated quickly and acted on. Support from specialist teams was sought when required.

Staff used an escalation tool to assess when to raise health concerns. Senior care staff also used observation charts to monitor people who they were concerned about.

The provider worked across teams and services to support people. During the inspection, we observed how the management team liaised with other social care teams in order to ensure people’s needs were met safely. Records we looked at showed that staff kept the local older people’s mental health team up to date with how people were presenting, and whether additional advice or guidance was required.

One health professional told us, “The home will often reach out to our team particularly for support around those residents that are falling or may display challenging behaviours. The home is very proactive at alerting us and requesting the GP to refer to other services. This makes sure the resident’s needs are addressed in a timely manner.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice, and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People told us they received support to access healthcare, inside and outside of the service. Comments from people’s relatives included, “[Name] has put on weight and seems to like the food” and “I went in to visit about 10 days ago and a carer was feeding [name] and chatting to [name]. [They] need to have pureed food now and the carer said to me ‘I have to time it just right.’ I can see that [relative] eats very well with the staff’s support; they really do look after [name].”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Records showed staff liaised closely with other health professionals. This included following up on issues raised if they were not resolved. One health professional said, “The management team contacted our service to request support as when they started in the home, they were concerned about the number of bedbound residents and felt many of these had been left in bed and could in fact be seated if the staff were provided education and support on how best to achieve this. We were able to provide this to the home which meant a number of residents that were previously deemed bedbound were now able to get up and sit out for short periods throughout the day.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected their decisions. People and their relatives told us their choices were respected. One person’s relative told us, “[Name] likes showers and that is what [they] have, and they have choices about food and things like that and whether they join in with activities or not; but the staff do encourage them.” Another person’s relative said, “[Name] has a bath. That’s [name’s] choice.”

Staff told us they received mental capacity training and promoted people's best interests. One staff member said, "If someone refuses personal care, I will speak to a colleague or senior and someone else will try.” The staff member described in detail how they met one person’s personal hygiene needs in line with care plan guidance. Another staff member told us, “Sometimes [name] says, ‘please, I don’t want a shower today’ and I will respect [their] wishes. If [they] needed personal care I would try and maintain [their] dignity whilst respecting their decision.” We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Assessments of people’s mental capacity and best interest meetings had taken place to ensure decisions made were appropriate and least restrictive.