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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

At the previous assessment the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to how people were not supported in a person-centred way. The provider had made the required improvements and is no longer in breach of these regulations.

This service scored 64 (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.

Most care plans were person centred and developed around people’s needs. These clearly outlined how people wished to be supported. Staff had obtained comprehensive life history information for each person, enabling them to deliver support that was informed, personalised and unique to the person’s background.

People and relatives told us staff understood their needs and supported them in a person-centred way. For example, a relative said, “The staff are amazing and know [person] so well, there is always something fun going on when we visit.”

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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, relatives, and staff were encouraged to give feedback about the service. Residents’ meetings, one‑to‑one discussions and surveys provided opportunities for people to express views or raise suggestions. People said staff were approachable and responsive.

Staff told us the positive culture in the home encouraged people to speak up. They said leaders listened and made changes where appropriate, including adapting menus, reviewing activities, or improving aspects of care planning. This inclusive approach helped people feel respected and able to influence their care.

The management team took complaints seriously, investigated and provided a timely response. Learning was taken from complaints and used to improve the service.

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

Staff were proactive in helping people access healthcare, community resources and activities that aligned with their needs and interests. Staff encouraged people to participate in activities, ensuring nobody was excluded due to their needs or abilities. We observed people who used a walking aid accessing the garden, they said, “I love going into the garden and watching the sea.”

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

Some people’s care plans did not provide sufficient information or contain consistent information to enable staff to detect when people were in pain. For example, 1 person expressed their distress by saying staff were hurting them. The care plan acknowledged this but did not include guidance for staff to assess if the person was in pain or if they were distressed. The provider took immediate action when we raised this, gained medical advice and updated the persons’ care plan.

Staff undertook equality and diversity training and used this knowledge to advocate for people, ensuring they experienced fair and non‑discriminatory care. Staff treated people as individuals of equal value and worked in a non‑judgemental, inclusive manner.

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.

End of life care plans were person-centred and included detailed information about how people wanted to be supported at the end of their life. Care plans also considered what support people’s loved ones may need during and after the end of the person’s life.