Cheybassa Lodge Rest 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 rated inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to how people were not supported in a person-centred way.

This service scored 36 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People did not always get the care they needed which has been outlined in the Safe, Effective and Caring domains of the report.

The culture in the care home did not focus on meeting people’s individual preferences and needs. Care was task led rather than person led. This was demonstrated in people’s care records and our observations corroborated this.

Some people and their relatives told us they had not been involved with their care planning. Care plans were not sufficiently detailed or personalised. They contained little or no information about people's life histories, limiting opportunities for meaningful engagement and reminiscence. This is particularly important in dementia care. This reduced the provider’s ability to tailor care, address distress, and enhance people’s overall wellbeing.

There were shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People’s care was not joined-up or flexible because people or relatives were not always effectively involved in any care planning or decision-making. The registered manager had begun to implement processes to involve people, but time was needed to embed this.

There was no information in people’s care plans and staff did not tell us whether people had any protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Therefore, we were not assured people’s holistic needs were met. Some people who lived at Cheybassa Lodge Rest Home had a diagnosis of dementia which increased their vulnerability and risk of poor care. There was a lack of evidence this had been considered which increased the risk of people receiving poor care. People’s health conditions were noted within their care plans, however, information to guide staff on how to manage these health conditions was not always available. This increased the risk of poor care.

Records demonstrated the provider had made referrals to health professionals to seek support around some people’s changing health needs. However, 1 partner agency told us referrals to them were not always forthcoming. The registered manager told us of their plans to work more effectively with partner agencies to ensure people received better joined up care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service made some attempts to provide accessible information for people living with dementia. Easy-read menus with pictures were available and dementia-friendly signage was displayed around the service. These measures supported some understanding of daily routines and helped people navigate the environment.

However, we were not assured that people consistently had access to the information they needed about their care. There was no clear process for people to follow to gain access to their electronic care plans, meaning people and their representatives could not easily view, discuss, or understand their care and support arrangements.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There had been a lack of opportunities for people to be effectively involved in their care and the running of the service. There had not been meetings for people, relatives and staff for some time. The registered manager had identified this and had just started to organise meetings at the time of our inspection. People and their relatives had not always been effectively involved in reviewing their care. We saw records that demonstrated this had begun and an easy read version was available for people. However, at the time of our inspection, 2 people told us they had provided feedback about service activity but did not feel they had been properly listened to. This demonstrated these new systems needed time to be embedded to ensure people were effectively listened to.

The provider did not make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Records demonstrated professionals such as GP’s, district nurses and the Older Person’s Mental Health Teams were involved in the care of some people. However, a partner agency told us the service was not always forthcoming with referrals. This meant people may not have access to support when they always needed it. The registered manager had increased their oversight around this to ensure people received timely support.

Care plans did not clearly demonstrate what access people had to support with their oral, foot, hair and hearing healthcare needs. We saw concerns in some of these areas at the time of our inspection. This put people at risk of not having their health needs met.

There was a bath in the home, but this was not accessible for some people particularly those with higher needs. This meant not all people could have a bath if they wanted one. There was a shower, but this was not an inviting place to be. Records demonstrated showers did not happen for people on a regular basis. This increased the risk of people being unable to access appropriate facilities to maintain their hygiene.

People’s ability to access facilities outside the care home was not clearly documented in care plans. This meant staff did not have guidance on who could access external health appointments, who would need support and how this support should be provided.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People living with dementia did not always experience equitable care. Staff lacked the competence to respond effectively to distress or behaviours that challenge. This placed people at risk of emotional and physical harm and meant their experience of care was poorer than those not living with dementia. As a result, people were more likely to feel unsafe, misunderstood, and unsupported in managing their condition.

People who stayed in their bedroom did not receive the same amount of staff interaction and time as those in communal spaces. A relative told us that staff were too busy to ensure their relative’s emotional and social needs were met because they were focussing on the same people who spent most of their time in the lounge area. There was no evidence that when staff did spend time with people in their rooms that it focussed on aspects such as their well-being and reducing social isolation rather than being focussed on tasks.

The registered manager told us about some of the barriers that people who lived at Cheybassa Lodge Rest Home may face and said they would be arranging extra training to support people to receive equitable care.

People were not 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.

Staff told us 2 people were receiving end of life care. However, professionals external to the service said although they had palliative care needs, they were not actively requiring end of life care. These 2 people spent all their time in bed. This inconsistency placed them at risk of receiving inappropriate or unnecessary care. The registered manager told us they would contact the GP for clarity and ensure people were receiving care that reflected their needs.

Care plans did not always reflect people’s preferences in relation to goals, aspirations or future events. This meant staff were not provided with effective guidance about how to support them in these areas.