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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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.

At our last assessment, the provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and it was not always clear how people were involved in their care planning and reviews. At this assessment, we found there had been significant improvement with people being involved in their care planning and reviews. We saw evidence of working in partnership with people, for example external health professionals to support people’s needs and wellbeing. The provider had introduced a key worker system however there were still shortfalls in ensuring all staff were completing the key worker documentation with people.

Staff completed daily notes for people and we observed positive interactions between staff. Staff had also recently attended training in person centred values and person centred approaches.

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.

There was good continuity of care at Rectory Lodge and the staff knew people well. There was a low turnover of staff and a stable staff team. Staff communicated well with external health and social care professionals to support people’s needs.

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

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were recorded to ensure staff knew their preferred way of communicating. The provider had information in various formats such as the feedback forms for people in easy read documents and by using pictures to help people to be empowered to make decisions and raise any concerns they may have. People’s information was kept secure and confidential.

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.

The provider had made improvements to ensuring people were listened to and able to raise any concerns. The provider ensured that people had the compliments, complaints and comments policy in an accessible format such as an easy read option. There was a concerns and compliments box on the wall for people to use and each person had been given a leaflet about how to raise issues. There were signs up in the office and main entrance area about how to complain. The new registered manager told us they had plans to start an inhouse newsletter to share with people and representatives/relatives and professionals.

The provider carried out regular residents’ meetings and had introduced feedback surveys in people’s care plans. The provider still needed to make it clear when surveys were being completed and how feedback was being actioned, though we did see improvements with this since the last assessment.

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

People were supported to attend healthcare appointments and staff told us they supported people to access appointments and services when required. Referrals had been made to external services such as GPs and Psychiatrists. Care plans were accessible to staff.

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.

People had access to external health providers and healthcare professionals and we saw evidence of feedback from healthcare professionals that they had seen improvements in people’s health needs with continued support between themselves and the provider.

Feedback we received was positive around people having more access to the community and more encouragement to live independently and access activities that were important to them. Staff respected people’s independence, choice and privacy when providing support with personal care.Staff were passionate in ensuring people’s needs were met. Staff had a good understanding of the importance of equity in experiences.

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity and staff understood people had a right to be treated fairly and equally.

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 provider had processes for planning for the future such as end of life wishes and preferences. However, we did identify that there were some gaps or incomplete documentation for some people’s end of life preferences and goals and aspiration planning. For those with completed information around goal planning, we did see an improvement in these being achieved since our last assessment.