Minchenden 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 service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment, the rating is good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People received care that was tailored to their individual needs and preferences. Care plans contained information about people’s routines, interests and the support they required, which helped guide staff in providing personalised support. Relatives told us they were involved in discussions about care and were informed when changes were made.

Relatives also described how staff adapted activities and outings to suit people’s preferences. Feedback from relatives included, “They call me first and ask if it is OK for [my relative] to go [on an outing],” while another said, “They took [my relative] to the zoo and [my relative] really enjoyed it.” Others told us staff checked whether people wished to take part in social events, to ensure support remained flexible.

During the site visit, we observed staff addressing people by their preferred names and demonstrating familiarity with their individual routines, communication styles and levels of independence. Staff anticipated when people required reassurance or encouragement and adapted their approach accordingly. This supported personalised interactions and continuity in people’s day-to-day experiences.
 

The provider worked to ensure people experienced continuity of care as their needs changed. Care plans contained information about people’s routines and support requirements to help staff provide consistent care. Relatives told us they were involved in planning aspects of support and felt staff were flexible when arrangements needed to be made.

One family member described discussing discharge arrangements with staff and said they were able to decide together whether the service or the family would organise transport home. Another relative explained staff were “really helpful in arranging and planning” activities and appointments, which helped ensure care remained coordinated.

During the site visit, we observed staff sharing information about people’s needs and responding promptly when assistance was required, supporting continuity in day-to-day care.

The provider ensured people were given information about the service and their care in a way they could understand. Staff adapted how they shared information to meet people’s individual communication needs, including providing explanations and support to help people understand their care and make decisions. This supported people to remain informed and involved in their care.

The provider used structured approaches, such as regular conversations and newsletters, to share information about events, activities and developments within the home. During the site visit, we observed staff taking time to explain aspects of care to people and respond to their questions, which supported their understanding and involvement.

Relatives told us staff communicated regularly with them about their family member’s wellbeing and were approachable if they required updates. These approaches supported open communication and helped ensure people and those important to them remained informed.
 

The provider sought people’s and relatives’ views about the care and support provided. Relatives told us they were able to share feedback through regular conversations and meetings. One family member explained they valued the opportunity to speak with staff and other relatives about the running of the home.

The provider had a system in place to manage complaints. Relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and felt confident these would be listened to and acted upon. Relatives described feeling listened to when they raised questions or requests and that staff would contact them to discuss aspects of care when needed. Where concerns had been raised, these were responded to appropriately.

During the site visit, we observed staff taking time to speak with visiting relatives and responding positively to queries. These approaches supported people and those important to them to share feedback and be involved in the development of the service.
 

The provider supported people to access care and services when they were needed. Relatives told us staff helped to arrange or facilitate healthcare input, including GP involvement and specialist support where required. One family member explained staff supported their relative to attend appointments and kept them informed about outcomes.

Relatives also described the service as accessible and responsive. One relative said there were “no restrictions on visits,” which enabled families to remain involved in people’s lives. Others told us staff responded to requests for support and made efforts to ensure people received appropriate care.
 

The provider aimed to ensure people experienced care that reflected their individual backgrounds and preferences. Information about people’s needs and personal wishes was recorded in their care plans to help staff provide inclusive support. Relatives told us staff took account of cultural and religious needs where required. One family member explained staff had asked whether their relative wished to see a priest, which helped ensure their spiritual needs were respected.

Relatives also described how people were supported to take part in meaningful events and activities. One relative said, “There are lots of events organised and they do a lot for veterans,” which was important to their family member’s identity and life experiences.
 

The provider supported people and their relatives to consider future changes in care and support, including planning for end of life care where appropriate. Care records included information about people’s preferences and wishes, including how they would like to be supported as their needs changed. This helped ensure care remained person-centred and reflected people’s choices.

Relatives told us staff discussed people’s ongoing needs and involved them in planning when circumstances changed. Relatives also explained staff remained flexible and reviewed support where required. One relative said staff were “really helpful in arranging and planning,” which helped ensure care continued to reflect their family member’s situation.

Staff worked with relevant professionals to support people as their needs progressed, which helped ensure appropriate care and support was in place.