The 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment due to some care records and risk assessments not being updated or containing the appropriate information for staff to safely support people.

Although systems such as monthly care plan reviews were in place, we found that 1 person had no information around their background history and the likes and dislikes section had not been completed within their care plan. This meant we could not always be assured that all information for people was being captured within care plans and risk assessments.

During our onsite inspection, we observed that staff knew people and their needs well and we saw people being offered choices and activities taking place.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The Lodge had a stable staff team, with a low turnover of staff. The staff team was consistent, which helped people know who was supporting them and promoted continuity of care. Feedback we received from people and their relatives supported that they felt the staffing team was consistent.

Feedback we received was positive around the care and support people were receiving. Relatives confirmed they were informed if their family members required support from other agencies. One relative told us, “We are kept up to date with any external support.” Staff told us they would support people to attend health appointments where required.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication preferences were documented within their care plans and information would be supplied in different formats to support people’s needs under the accessible information standard (AIS) where required. The AIS is a legal requirement for organisations providing NHS and adult social care support to ensure people are provided with information in formats that support their specific needs, for example in easy read formats or larger print. People’s information was kept secure and confidential.

Feedback we received from relatives confirmed that they were, where appropriate kept up to date with people’s needs. Comments included, “The family are kept up to date with any changes to [relative’s] needs.”

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 and their relatives confirmed they were encouraged to provide feedback of the service via meetings and surveys. The home had a spokesperson for people who live at The Lodge to help support people to voice their views. Feedback from people and their relatives was positive around being able to raise any concerns with the management team. A relative told us, “I have not had to raise any concerns, but I am aware of how to.”

The provider had a complaints policy in place, and we saw evidence of any actions taken to resolve concerns or complaints and their outcomes.

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

The provider made appropriate referrals and supported people to access the community where appropriate. People were supported to attend healthcare appointments and had access to staff 24 hours a day.

Care plans were accessible to staff via an electronic care system. Staff told us they had no issues with accessing care plans and recording daily activities.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback we received was positive around the support provided by staff and people and their relatives confirmed they had access to external health and social care providers when required. People had access to activities within the home and we observed people joining in with activities during our onsite inspection. One person told us, “We do exercise and there is a dog that comes in to us which is lovely."

People were not always 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.

At the time of this inspection visit no one was receiving end of life care.Care plans reviewed contained some information regarding people’s wishes and preferences around their end-of-life support, however 1 person’s care plan we reviewed, only stated to consult the person’s family, despite the person having capacity to express their own wishes. Some aspects of people’s preferences could benefit from more in-depth information to ensure the staffing team have the appropriate information available to meet people’s needs at their end of life.

The provider held meetings with people, staff and relatives to help gather feedback around activities and planning for future events.