Edingley 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 provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been ratedgood.This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We reviewed care plans which were detailed, person centred and tailored to people’s individual needs and wishes.

Care plans evidenced involvement of people, family and input from external professionals, relatives also spoke with us about attending reviews of relatives care and support.

All our observations supported that people were at the centre of their care and interactions and support was person centred. One staff member said, “Looking after people every day is a privilege.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The registered manager and staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual health and care needs. Staff had received person specific training to develop their knowledge of people’s requirements to ensure they effectively met people’s needs. The registered manager considered at assessment if the staff would require any additional training to effectively support people potentially moving into the home.

People were supported to make informed choices about their care which included the appointments they accessed.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We saw information displayed around the home which included photos of the staff team and their role, information on activities, and news on events that had been held at the home.

People were provided with a service user guide which gave detailed information on staff roles, how to identify them through their uniform, when meals were served and other useful information.

The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and how best to provide information which included larger print and audio information for people with a visual impairment.

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.

People had access to a copy of the complaint’s procedure, which was provided when they moved into the home, information on who to raise concerns with was also displayed in the home.

The registered manager actively sought feedback from people and relatives and people also had opportunities to raise any suggestions or concerns at the resident meetings.

People and relatives felt comfortable to raise concerns with staff or the management team. One relative said, “If I have issues, I raise it. I like the professionalism.” Another relative told us, “If I raised an issue, it would be dealt with. [Registered manager] listens and makes it ok.”

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

We saw that people were able to access care, support and treatment, both in and out of the home, when it was required.

We did not speak with anyone who had concerns about not having the opportunity to get the care and treatment they needed or wished for in a timely manner.

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.

The registered manager spoke with us about people’s protected characteristics and how this was considered to ensure people did not experience inequality in outcomes and their individual characteristics were respected and supported. They said, “We do pick up all this information during pre-admission assessment. I come back to the home and make sure the team are aware of the needs of this person, and ensure chef is aware, and these needs are updated on [digital care planning platform]. Religious needs we would also identify if there is a specific person they have support from, we would get in touch with them to make sure they can still support them or identify someone else, there are resources you can utilise.”

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.

We saw documentation included people’s end of life care planning as well as DNACPR (do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) for people that had made this decision. Where people had a DNACPR in place this was sensitively and discreetly indicated using small, coloured hearts so staff and professionals could quickly identify when this was someone’s wishes.

The registered manager spoke with us about a decision made with a person, their family and medical professionals about their future health needs and treatment and how this was carried out sensitively and prioritised the persons wishes for comfort over ongoing medical treatment.