Middleton Park Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness,dignityand respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key questiongood. At thisassessmentthe rating haschanged torequires improvement.This meant people did not always feel well-supported, caredforor treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation todignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Serious concerns were identified indicating a persistent failure to uphold individuals’ dignity and privacy. We observed an incident that demonstrated a clear disregard for these fundamental standards. Some people appeared unkempt, indicating care was not consistently delivered in line with expected standards. A relative told us, “Some[staff] can’t be bothered to take him to the toilet they wait till he wets himself and then they changed him.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Activities such as music, social engagement, and access to outdoor spaces were provided to support people’s emotional wellbeing, demonstrating some recognition of individual preferences and the importance of meaningful engagement. However, opportunities were not consistently inclusive or tailored to meet everyone’s needs. While some feedback was positive, concerns were raised. One relative commented, “The able-bodied ones are the only ones that go out,” indicating that people with higher support needs may not have had equal access to activities and community engagement.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Care reflected people’s preferences, life history and routines. Staff supported independence while managing risks. Families were involved in care planning and decision-making. Documentation could be strengthened to show how independence is actively promoted.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were able to describe how they recognised and responded to people’s needs, including understanding non‑verbal cues and signs of pain. This demonstrated some awareness and knowledge, although this was not consistently used in practice.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Although systems were in place to support the workforce, including regular staff surveys, team meetings and supervision, staff did not consistently feel well supported, with mixed feedback provided regarding management and supervision. Comments included, “not 100%” and “yes I mean I haven’t had any problems,” indicating variability in staff experience and wellbeing.