Marnel Lodge Care Home

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 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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care and support were person-centred. Care was coordinated to maximise independence and planned to incorporate people’s choices and preferences. For example, people could choose when they woke up and went to bed, as well as what to eat. Care plans were person-centred to ensure care was provided in accordance with people’s preferences.

The registered manager shared several positive news stories about very specific and individual support. They told us about a person who requested a specialised bed, which was put in place before they moved into the service. The service had a schedule of activities which people could choose to take part in.

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.

People’s choices were evident throughout the inspection. People and their relatives told us, and documents demonstrated, people had access to appropriate healthcare when required and staff fully engaged with the process.

The registered manager told us how they collaborated with healthcare professionals to ensure care was joined up. They gave us an example of how they had supported a person in a way that helped remove some of the barriers to care.

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

People’s communication needs and preferences were recorded in care plans. Accessible information was available to people who required it. For example, documentation was available in large print.

Relatives told us information was provided clearly, and an information update was shared with them weekly. Relatives told us they were consistently kept informed about what was happening with their relative.

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 were asked for their feedback when their care plans were reviewed, at residents’ meetings and through daily conversations. The chef sought feedback from people to plan a menu informed by their preferences. We saw evidence feedback had been listened to and acted on, which supported continual improvement.

Relatives told us they were invited to relatives’ meetings. Most relatives told us they had never had to complain but knew who to complain to if needed. They were confident any complaint would be taken seriously and addressed.

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

Care plans recorded people’s needs and required adjustments. Equipment supported safe care, the garden was accessible, and raised planters were being developed for wheelchair users.

However, the environment did not fully support people living with dementia. Although corridors used different colours, there was limited signage and no memory boxes, sensory features or meaningful points of interest. Artwork was generic. This increased the risk of disorientation and reliance on staff to navigate the home.

The activity poster was small and text-heavy, making it less accessible to people living with dementia. The activity poster was small and text-heavy, making it less accessible to people living with dementia. We raised these concerns with the registered manager, who acted immediately. The provider’s dementia team reviewed the environment and produced an improvement action plan.

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

Staff had completed training and understood the Equality Act 2010. Staff treated people as individuals and adjusted care and support to meet individuals’ needs and preferences. The registered manager and staff gave us several examples of how people’s outcomes had been improved since living at the service. One relative told us, “They got taken to hospital and a staff member went with them from the care home initially in the ambulance and then somebody at the hospital was lined up and assigned to them once they arrived there. They did take care of my relative.”

The registered manager shared feedback they had received from a healthcare professional, who said, “Investigations that I request are always acted upon promptly and my management plans are followed. In my experience, protocols are followed appropriately e.g. regular observations and monitoring after residents have a fall, and unwell residents are identified and their care escalated appropriately.”

People were 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.

This meant the provider had considered people’s future and end-of-life planning to ensure that, if people’s health deteriorated, staff would know how they wanted to be cared for at the end of their lives. Where people did not want to discuss end-of-life care, this was respected and revisited periodically.

A professional involved with the service said, “When I have direct contact with residents’ relatives, they often praise the Marnel staff for their care and support, especially at the end of life.”