Harrogate 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 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. Care plans were person centred and people told us they were involved in their care plans. Some relatives felt they were not as involved in care planning as they would have liked to be.

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 were supported to access their local communities. Where this was not possible events took place in the home.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Some relatives told us that when their relative transferred from hospital to the intermediate care service for rehabilitation they did not receive as much information as they would like from the hospital or from the service. One relative, who’s family member had not been at the home very long, did not know who the registered manager was. We discussed this with the registered manager who was looking into a more robust process for when people came to the home, so people and their relatives had all the information they required when they arrived.

The service 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. The service had good processes in place for staff to share feedback within team meetings. Relative meetings were available for people to attend, and suggestion boxes were available all around the home for people to share feedback.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We saw evidence of referrals when people required support from healthcare professionals. The GP was closely involved with the service and attended weekly clinical meetings.

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 with protected characteristics were not discriminated against and their care plans were written in a respectful manner.

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. Records showed staff supported people with end‑of‑life planning. Where people discussed and expressed their wishes, information was documented in a respectful manner.