Collington Park 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 75 (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 personal routines were detailed in care plans, so it was easy for staff to identify those things that were important to an individual, for example, “early riser between 7-9.” Preferences were detailed such as, “Likes to have nails done but not to be painted.”People understood they could make decisions and choices regarding how they were supported by the care team.

People living with dementia were helped to recognise their room by adding a picture or photo of choice, something they really liked or related to, a personal interest that would spark recognition, for example a particular animal.

Families confirmed to us that they had been involved in the planning of care and were regularly updated and consulted about any necessary changes or developments.

The registered manager told us they provided a good range of training and encouraged all staff to read the care plans and fully understand people’s needs, ensuring staff delivered person centred care

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 registered manager appreciated the importance of building and maintaining good working relationships with other healthcare professionals in the local community. The support services they offered were seen as integral in allowing people to improve health conditions and enjoy a balanced active lifestyle whilst mitigating any future risks to their wellbeing.

Partner services were welcomed into the home, and staff were seen to interact professionally when discussing a person’s needs with a visiting clinician. Professional feedback was positive and confirmed, “They have an understanding of rehab and progressing” and “There is a very high level of continuity of care throughout the home.”

The organisation of the staff rota, with staff often working their 3 days on one floor promoted continuity of care within the home. T

emporary placements were accepted and the home accommodated people for short stay periods of care, (respite), and ensured the life skills needed for their return home were considered and maintained. A professional told us, “Clients can prepare their own hot drinks here, so are independently making drinks, which can be missing for respite care.”

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

Prior to admission, when completing the pre-assessment, management identified any specific communication needs or sensory loss that may affect how people understand information given to them. This was recorded in their care plan so all staff would be aware of the best approach to take when communicating with people. General information was displayed on notice boards within the home and at the time of our visit no one had any significant communication needs. People had access to leaflets and brochures, and the activity staff could provide pictorial support to those who needed it.

The registered manager understood the requirements of GDPR and ensured personal information was securely stored and only able to be accessed and shared when necessary. Consent for sharing information was gained from people on admission.

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.

Throughout our visit staff were visible and easily accessible to people and visitorsshould they have any queries or need assistance.

We observed and overheard staff speaking to family who had requested information and an update on their loved one’s care. The family member was next of kin and offers were made to email over the care plan so family could read it through; it was confirmed staff would talk to the care manager to arrange this and check that they were legally entitled to have this information. Family confirmed back to staff they could assist with supporting visits to appointments; this evidenced a nice interaction and communication between the different parties involved in supporting the overall care needs and wellbeing of an individual.

Where possible people’s preferences were always respected and accommodated for example, when people disliked their early medication routine staff contacted the pharmacy to request rearranging administration times to later in the day; this was discussed and a time change agreed so the routine was more suitable to the person’s liking.

The registered manager told us they were proud of the support they gave to people and their families and acknowledged that it could be hard for next of kin when their loved ones needed the additional support of a care environment, and all that it entails, so wanted to ensure confidence and open channels of communication. There was a complaints policy in place and correct procedures were followed when any concerns were raised.

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

Staff assisted people in accessing any medical support they needed and ensured everyone could retain their levels of independence but still knew support was available should they require it. The home provided staff escorts to people going out, if they required accompanying when leaving the home, and we saw a group of people being assisted to go out for the afternoon. The premises was accessible, so easily accommodated those who had mobility needs, having lifts to all floors and a wheelchair accessible garden which was thoughtfully designed to give ample access without being obvious it was designed for a residential environment.

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.

People staying at the home had varying needs, but were all given the same opportunities in accessing activities and experiences. We regularly observed care staff taking people into the garden in wheelchairs, stopping to look at plants and have a chat, it was unrushed. People enjoyed the garden room as a favourite place to spend time, and some activities such as flower arranging were held there. A person told us, “I walk around the garden sometimes or sit in the garden room.”

There were various daily activities, and when we were visiting the home we saw some people went out to a local shop, some did quieter activity such as reading, and some took part with a mother and baby group that visited the home; they had music, nursery rhymes and some physical movement, and provided reminiscence for people who were involved. It encouraged observational conversation and was a positive interactive session. People told us there was a good choice of what to do, and lots of areas to spend time in. A professional told us, “Residents are encouraged to take part in activities where they want to.”

We observed people playing memory games with some people being more engaged than others due to the mixed capabilities, but the staff assisting with activities were attentive and interactive with everyone. The care manager confirmed to us that the activity programme was designed to provide everyone with something they could enjoy and appreciate each day, so catering for, and benefitting, the varied needs of people living there.

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.

Some people had a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment form, (ReSPECT), in place; this detailed people’s future wishes should they become suddenly unwell and ensures someone’s preferred care and treatment is provided during an emergency.

End of life details were documented for people and details were kept in care plans, easy for staff to access. At the time of our visit no one was being supported with end-of-life, (EOL). The registered manager understood the importance of managing this important phase of life with sensitivity. When discussing plans for the home they told us, “I would love to incorporate EOL care and the Gold Standards.” Gold standards are a healthcare framework for end-of-life care. The home had access to a community nursing team should they need specialist advice for people who may be deteriorating and require increased clinical support.