Rectory Lodge

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff spoke positively and with kindness and understood the importance of treating people with respect. Staff told us, “We make sure people have what they need.” We observed staff were attentive to people’s needs and promoting people’s dignity. For example, knocking on people’s doors before entering their rooms.

We saw positive feedback from some external health professionals with regards to the staff teams care and support for people at Rectory Lodge which had led to positive outcomes for people’s wellbeing.

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.

At our last assessment, we found that care plans and risk assessments were not always up to date and consistent and we identified some restrictions at the service We did find that there were still some gaps with some aspects of reviewing care plans. For example, one person’s care plan we reviewed had some blank areas around their goals and aspirations and their activities support plan. This could impact how staff treated that person as an individual.

We observed staff supporting people well and staff spoke positively about treating people as individuals. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of peoples’ likes and dislikes during our on-site assessment. The provider told us they had plans in place to redecorate people’s rooms alongside each individual and make them more personalised. The provider had also made improvements to the communal spaces to make them more personalised.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

At the last assessment the provider was not always promoting people’s independence. We found some people had experienced restrictions over their choices, such as smoking cigarettes and a lock on the kitchen fridge. There was not always clear rationale or best interest decisions evident to reflect these choices. However, at this assessment, we found improvements around decision making and removal of restrictions. People were accessing the community more and staff spoke positively about the impact this had been having on people they supported.

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.

People told us they could ask staff for support when needed. One person told us, “Staff take me out and help with everything.” During our on-site assessment, we observed staff responded to people’s needs in a timely manner and there were staff available to assist when needed.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported them to deliver good quality care.

At our last assessment, there was a shortfall in the number of supervisions that staff were receiving and there was no registered manager in post which was impacting the number of supervisions that were being carried out. Since our last assessment, the provider had recruited a new registered manager and we found that staff are receiving more regular supervisions. The provider also had processes in place to support staff wellbeing via staff meetings and training.

Feedback from staff was mostly positive about support from the registered manager. Comments included, “The [registered manager] will thank you and this makes you feel more appreciated” and “I feel more seen now and I am learning more and feel more confident.”