Beechwood 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 ensure that people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, nor consistently work in partnership with them to respond to changes in their needs.

The registered manager had identified the need to improve personalised care planning and ensure records accurately reflected how care was delivered. Care plans lacked sufficient detail to guide staff on how people wanted to be supported, although general information about people’s likes and preferences was available. Records did not always demonstrate how personalised care was being delivered, for example, repositioning records did not consistently reflect the guidance outlined in care plans.

The registered manager was responsive to feedback, and work was ongoing to improve the accuracy of daily records and ensure they were completed in a timely way.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, enabling care to be joined-up, flexible, and supportive of choice and continuity.

People were happy with how care was provided by both the home and external professionals. Records clearly showed that referrals were made when needed, and staff acted on external guidance. Visiting professionals spoke positively about their working relationships with the home and how people were supported.

The provider ensured that information was appropriate, accurate, and up to date, and tailored it to meet individual needs.Staff considered people’s communication preferences and adapted their approach accordingly.

The registered manager understood the ‘Accessible Information Standard’ and assured us that information could be readily tailored to people’s needs. This included increasing the size of written communication or translating it where appropriate. Resources such as access to communication cards, whiteboards for written communication and access to books for people who were visually impaired were available.

People and families told us that communication within the home was good. Families felt well informed, especially when there were concerns about their relative’s wellbeing. Staff also reported that communication worked well and that they were kept up to date with any changes within the home.

The provider encouraged open communication by making it easy for people to share feedback, ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care.

Meetings were held with people, their families, and staff. People and families told us they felt comfortable sharing ideas and raising concerns, although they reported having no complaints at the time. Staff felt confident raising concerns and trusted that the registered manager would take appropriate action.

The provider ensured that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed, when they needed it. Staff supported individuals to access a range of external services and escalated concerns when barriers to access were experienced.

A variety of external professionals visited the home to support people, including specialists who checked people’s eyesight and hearing.

Staff and leaders actively listened to the needs of people most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes, and tailored care, support, and treatment in response. People and their families spoke positively about the care provided.

Although limited activities were observed during the site visit, feedback highlighted a good range of opportunities, including community trips, onsite events involving all units, and a regular exercise programme. Faith groups were also supported to visit people at the home.

People were not consistently supported to plan for significant life changes, including end-of-life care, in a timely and informed manner. There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that people were actively involved in decisions about their future. Care plans did not consistently reflect that these discussions had taken place, even when people were approaching the stage where such support was necessary.

Despite this, staff worked collaboratively with external professionals, including the ‘Hospital at home’ team, to ensure people remained comfortable as they approached the end of life. Feedback from families was positive. One relative commented, “[Family member] is end of life now but the way the staff have been with us from the start has been brilliant. They are a caring team here and it has made other family members realise that they want to come here as the care has been exceptional.”