Hatfield 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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. There had been improvements since our last assessment however, further improvements were needed. Care plans had more details about people’s choices and preferences, but there continued to be a lack of information about how people’s conditions affected them, such as osteoporosis.

There was more information about people’s religious choices and how staff could support them day to day. However, this was not always person centred to people’s individual needs. Following our assessment the registered manager sent us a newly created religious care plans, with the relevant information.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Systems and processes had been put in place after our last assessment; however, these were not fully embedded. Previously staff competency had not been assessed. The management team had started to assess staff skills to check they were providing safe care, but there had not been enough time to complete as many as the team wanted. The management told us the process would continue and be ongoing, to maintain quality.

The staff team continued to be stable, and some staff had returned to the service now changes had been made to the ways of working. Some staff explained they had returned to work at the service following recent changes being made.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There had been significant improvements in the way people were given information. There was now pictorial signage around the building to help people find their way independently.

The management team had reviewed all the information provided to people such as the complaints policy and service user guide. These were now provided in a simple short easy read format.

Previously, relatives had not been provided accurate information or been contacted when they were the person’s legal representative. The name of the person who should be contacted first by staff was clearly noted on people’s care plans.

The provider did not always make 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. There had been improvements made since our last assessment; however, not all the planned improvements were in place. The service had not yet sent out quality assurance surveys, but these were planned for early in the new year.

The service gathered feedback using their digital reception system, previously, responses had not been analysed or acted upon. Since our last assessment, changes had been made to make sure all responses were sent to the provider. The provider now reviewed the responses and sent them directly to the registered manager with an action plan. These action plans were followed up to make sure action had been taken and if the action had been effective.

Relatives told us, people knew how to complain and who to report issues to. They were happy concerns were sorted. For example, the laundry team now had buttons with room numbers on them to attach to people’s clothes, to reduce the risk of clothes being misplaced.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Since our last inspection, the changes to the way staff organised their workload, had reduced the time people had to wait for support. Previously when people required the support of 2 staff, they had to wait for staff to be available. People had not always had showers when they wanted them. People were now being offered more access to showers and activities.

People had access to out of hours healthcare, people were referred to healthcare professionals when they were unwell.

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. Following our last assessment, the management team had reviewed the way people received their care and support including their quality of life. They had made changes to improve the outcomes for people including how people were occupied during the day. The changes made to the way staff worked had increased the amount of time they could spend with people. Relatives told us their family member had appeared happier and more alert when they visited, with an increased appetite.

Previously, people had been placed at the service inappropriately and the service had not met their needs. There had not been any admissions to the service since our last assessment, however, the management team had made changes to the pre-admission assessment to make sure people’s needs would be met at the service.

People were not always 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. People’s end of life care plans continued to need some improvement. Although staff had recorded if people had anticipatory care plans about where they would like to be treated. There still lacked information about people’s choices and wishes. This was especially relevant when people had specific religious beliefs. The care plan did not state if there were any specific actions staff need to take if people’s condition deteriorates quickly or if they are unable to contact members of the church.