- Care home
Rectory Lodge
Assessment report published 6 June 2025
Contents
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
Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
This is the first assessment for this service under the current provider. This key question has been rated requires improvement.
This meant people’s needs were not always met.
The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.
This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.
Person-centred Care
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. It was not always clear how people were involved in their care planning and reviews. However, we did see there had been recent improvements with this.
We identified blanket restrictions around some aspects of daily living such as smoking and locking the fridge/pantry. In one person’s care plan the restriction planning tool which should be completed when someone lacks capacity to consent to restrictions was blank. We found that care plans did not always have enough detail in them. For one person we noted conflicting information about their choking risk. We made the provider aware of our findings and they agreed to address the inconsistencies identified.
Care provision, Integration 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.
Providing Information
The provider had processes in place to ensure people received information in an accessible format. We saw evidence in one care plan of information for diabetes management provided in an easy read format. People’s communication needs were recorded to ensure staff knew their preferred way of communicating.
Listening to and involving people
The provider had processes in place for regular meetings with people and we saw evidence of this in meeting minutes. However, it wasn’t always clear if feedback via surveys, complaints and compliments was being obtained. We saw feedback surveys in people’s care plans, but they did not include the dates they were completed. It was not clear how often or when these were being completed or if the feedback received was being actioned. The provider did have 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.
Equity in access
The provider had processes in place to ensure people had equal access to health and care services when needed. Staff told us they supported people to access appointments and services when required. Care plans were accessible to staff, however some aspects of the care plan were not completed and fully up to date. Referrals had been made to external services such as GPs and Psychiatrists.
Equity in experiences and outcomes
Staff feedback was mixed about whether they felt people had equity in experiences. Some staff felt that there was not always enough staff available to help people access the community as regularly as they would like to. Other staff felt the opportunities available to people were sufficient. We saw evidence of staff supporting a person to access their therapeutic activities and 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.
Planning for the future
The provider had processes in place for planning for the future. We saw people’s care plans included their wishes and preferences and funeral arrangements, however there were some gaps identified within the documents. We saw evidence of goal planning, but it was not always clear if these were being achieved.