Gibson's Lodge Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to, people’s safe care and treatment.

This service scored 60 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and people, and their relatives spoke positively about staff. One person said, “Staff are kind and caring,” and another told us, “The staff that look after me are very kind.”

Staff supported people with personal care discreetly and respected their privacy.

However, interactions were often task-focused rather than relationship-led. Staff appeared busy and prioritised completing tasks, which limited opportunities for meaningful engagement. During our observations, staff focused on delivering care but did not consistently take time to engage with people beyond what was required.

Staff told us the layout of the building made it difficult to locate colleagues when support was needed. This contributed to a task-driven approach to care.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The provider did not deliver a varied or personalised activities programme. Activities were not regular or tailored to people’s individual preferences, interests or needs. People who required one-to-one support or who remained in bed did not receive equitable opportunities for engagement. Staff did not consistently provide meaningful interaction for these people

Care plans did not consistently reflect people’s personal preferences, strengths or life histories. This limited staff’s ability to deliver personalised care.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

During our site visit, we observed staff were generally busy and had a range of tasks.

Staff supported people with daily care needs; however, systems did not ensure people’s preferences were clearly recorded or consistently followed. For example, people did not have clear meal preference plans, and there was limited evidence of structured activity planning based on individual choice.

Although staff knew people well, the lack of documented guidance made it difficult to ensure people were consistently offered choices about how they spent their time.

The limited use of pictorial, easy‑read, or visual prompts meant people were not always fully supported to make informed choices or navigate their environment independently.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

A person told us” I have a call bell but know I am going to wait for some time as staff are always busy.” Another person told us, “The staff will come to attend to me eventually, I just have to keep calling. The wait is long and staff are busy.”

We observed delays in staff responding to call bells. On occasions, call bells were not answered promptly and inspectors had to prompt staff to respond. This meant people’s needs were not always met when required.

People told us they experienced delays when requesting support.

Staff did not always respond appropriately to people’s emotional needs. For example, one person became anxious while waiting for their meal. Staff told the person to wait but did not offer reassurance, distraction or a clear explanation. This showed staff did not always recognise or respond to distress effectively.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management team and were able to raise concerns when needed. Staff said they felt confident they would be listened to. A staff member told us, “My manager is good I can approach them if I need”. Another staff said, “I can speak to my managers and they are supportive”.

The provider had policies and procedures in place to support staff wellbeing and promote a positive working environment.

However, staffing pressures affected staff’s ability to consistently deliver person-centred care. Staff reported working under pressure, which contributed to a task-focused approach.