Park Lodge Residential 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 service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Records did not provide assurance that people were repositioned in accordance with their assessed needs. For example, we found 1 person’s care plan identified that they required regular repositioning; however, records did not consistently demonstrate this had taken place. This meant the provider could not be assured that the identified risk to the person’s skin integrity was being effectively managed.

Care plans varied in their quality and level of detail and were inconsistently written in the first and third person. Some documentation referred to a person using an incorrect pronoun. This meant the provider could not be assured that information within people’s care plans was accurate and reflected their individual needs.

Care plans did not always contain sufficient information about people’s backgrounds, personal histories and what was important to them. This meant they did not always provide staff with comprehensive, person-centred information about the people they supported.

Some daily notes, body maps and other documentation did not contain people’s names, meaning it was not always possible to establish who the records related to.

Allergy information was inconsistently recorded across various documentation. This increased the risk of staff or healthcare professionals relying on inaccurate information when making decisions about people’s care and treatment.

Some staff members were new to their roles and did not yet know people well. Staff told us they worked towards providing person centred care. A staff member said, “For me, person-centred care is about getting to know the person rather than just seeing them as someone who needs care. I try to understand their likes, dislikes, routines and interests. It could be something simple like letting them choose what they want to wear, what they would like to eat or drink, what activity they want to do, or simply giving them time to talk. These small things can make a big difference to a resident's day and help them feel valued and listened to.”

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.

Health and social care professionals were complimentary about working with the service.

Staff worked with a wide range of external professionals.

A health and social care professionals said, “Residents’ likes, dislikes, capacity and concerns seem to be understood and taken into account during medication reviews. During a recent visit it was nice to see a resident joking with [registered manager], showing they had a good rapport.”

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

People’s communication needs were assessed.

We observed notices displayed throughout the service, including information about activities available on different days. These included pictures to make the information easier for people to understand and access.

The provider had an Accessible Information Standards policy in place. However, the provider recently changed their policies which were stored online and they were not assured that staff had access to them. This meant the provider could not be assured that staff were aware of the current guidance they needed to support people’s accessible information and communication needs.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider did not conduct surveys or regularly seek feedback from people or their relatives.

Complaints were not always managed effectively. For example, a complaint had been made about 1 person’s nail care. However, during our inspection, we observed the person’s nails were dirty and their nail care needs had not been effectively addressed. This meant the provider could not demonstrate that appropriate action had been taken in response to the complaint or that improvements had been sustained.

People and relatives confirmed they would approach the management team if they had any concerns and felt comfortable doing so.

However, we received mixed feedback regarding how responsive the provider had been to concerns raised. One relative said, “Any important issues that arise are dealt withas soon and as carefully as possible.” Another relative told us they had raised many concerns regarding their family member’s care and did not feel these were addressed accordingly.

The provider did not always ensure people could access the care and support they needed in a way that worked for them. Individual barriers to accessing support were not always identified, assessed or addressed.

There were not always suitable arrangements in place to enable people to request support when they needed it. We observed 1 person’s call bell was not consistently accessible to them. Records did not demonstrate that consideration had been given to whether the person could use the call bell independently or whether additional measures were needed to support them to access timely assistance.

This meant the provider could not be assured that people who experienced barriers to using a call bell had equitable access to staff support when they needed it.

Staff and leaders did not have effective systems to identify and address inequalities in people’s experiences and outcomes. The provider did not routinely seek or analyse people’s views to understand whether some people experienced poorer care or outcomes than others, including people who may have required additional support to communicate their needs, wishes or concerns.

People were not routinely asked for feedback, and we found no evidence that they were involved in their care planning. The provider did not conduct surveys with people or their relatives, facilitate meetings for people living at the service, or have another effective system for routinely obtaining their views. This meant the provider had limited opportunities to identify where individual people may have experienced barriers to receiving care that met their needs.

There were examples where people’s individual circumstances were not fully considered. For example, 1 person who could become anxious during personal care did not have this risk adequately assessed and clear guidance was not in place for staff about how to support them with their personal hygiene.

The provider could not be assured they routinely identified, monitored and addressed inequalities to support equitable experiences and outcomes for people.

People’s care plans did not always contain information about their end-of-life wishes and preferences. This meant it was not always clear whether people had been supported to discuss and plan their future care in advance.

The provider worked with GPs and other healthcare professionals to support planning when required.

Bereavement with end-of-life care training was available to staff; however, not all staff had completed it.