The Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good: This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Staff were familiar with people’s communication styles and needs and we observed staff changing the way they communicated with people depending on their individual needs. For example, one person used a modified version of Makaton to communicate. Makaton is a unique language program which combinessigns (hand gestures), symbols (pictures), and speechto help people with communication, learning, or cognitive difficulties communicate effectively.

Care plans and risk assessments were developed alongside people and those important to them. People’s care was regularly reviewed to ensure it was up to date, and referrals had been made where concerns were identified.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People experienced aspects of right support, right care and right culture. Staff promoted people’s dignity, choice and independence, and care was planned around people’s individual needs and preferences. Staff adapted their communication approaches to support people to express their wishes and reduce distress or anxiety.

People were at the centre of their care. People were involved in setting targets and goals which they could work towards as part of their ongoing care. For example, with support from professionals one person had identified a need to drink less caffeinated drinks, the provider worked with them in order to work towards this as a goal. This meant that the service promoted people’s independence and people had the opportunity to access the community as part of their daily routines. Staff were aware of outcomes in place to ensure they delivered the correct care that people needed.

The provider worked work well across teams to support people.

The service had systems in place to ensure people’s information was shared where appropriate. Information was shared via daily notes and staff meetings where people’s needs were discussed with staff.

People’s relatives did not raise concerns specific concerns regarding staff conduct. However, relatives did describe not all staff understanding their relative’s needs. For example, one relative told us, “[person’s] day really depends on which carer is involved with [person], some staff know him very well but others do not”.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. People were encouraged to explore religious, cultural and preferences where people have expressed an interest.

People’s health needs were identified, assessed and reviewed. When people needed support from external health professionals there was a system to ensure referrals were made and care plans were updated to reflect any changes or recommendations. For example, a person had been working towards making healthier food choices to improve their health.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

There were systems in place to ensure people’s needs were identified, assessed and reviewed. Where additional monitoring was identified, it was be implemented and used in way to ensure positive outcomes were achieved for people.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

During the assessment we found not all people had been involved in or agreed to aspects of their care which could impact on their privacy. For example, although the provider had identified a need to use monitoring equipment as a way to reduce the risks posed to a person using the service, there was no evidence the person was involved or agreed to this approach. Following the assessment the provider shared assurances they would resolve this issue by ensuring the appropriate consent was obtained.