Filsham 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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 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.

People told us, “I have been here some years, but I do get lonely and bored because no one really talks to me, the manager is too busy and I miss having a key worker” and “The staff look after us, very well, they know us and make sure we get what we like.” A relative said, “No grumbles really, I think the bedrooms could be re decorated, my relatives room is looking a little tatty.” Another relative said, “Yes they asked us all about what they liked, didn’t like and hobbies and jobs, they really seemed interested in them as a person.”

People's care plans and risk assessments were personalised for each person; however, information was not always kept up to date. For example, there were people whose needs had changed following a decline in health or an incident/accident and this had not been cross referenced into their care plans. There were also discrepancies in peoples’ care plans regarding methods of medicine administration. This meant that essential information was not available to staff or to external health professionals if required. This was immediately rectified.

Daily records reflected peoples’ personal care but lacked any mention of peoples’ mental health or emotions. This was an area that senior staff were working on with all care staff.

There was an activity plan displayed and a team of 3 activity people to provide activities 7 days a week. It was noticeable on the first day of the site visit that there was only one activity person on, due to holidays and so people in their rooms and in lounges did not receive any interaction. Staff said they did what they could to help, but recognised it was not ideal as some people needed 1-1. This was discussed with the registered manager who advised us that they had just recruited a further two part time co-ordinators to provide further cover for 7 days a week and to cover holidays.

Information in care plans enabled professional visitors to engage with people as they reflected people’s individual interests and their preferences for communication support. One person said, “They have let me add all my bits and pieces, it’s now like home.” Another told us “Staff support me to go out with family, it keeps me going, I love going out for lunch.” People’s personal care was person specific and supported by information about how they wanted their personal care provided. However, there was a lack of detail of how staff enabled and encouraged them to be independent, no matter how small. Staff were considerate and respectful of people’s individual needs when they supported them. For example, people in their rooms were comfortable and staff ensured that they had their favourite music on, or television show and staff interacted with them positively, addressing them by their preferred name. During mealtimes, staff assisted people if they required it, by prompting or by assisting them to eat. There was a relaxed atmosphere and people enjoyed their meals.

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. However there were a number of safeguards that had been identified where communication had been problematic. The safeguards were still in progress so we were unable to comment further at this time. The registered manager was receptive to advice and feedback from other professionals and used this to consistently improve care.

One person told us, “I do get to see a doctor when I need to, I have been taken to the hospital for tests, and a chiropodist sees me here.” Relatives told us they felt well informed and were contacted if their loved one was unwell, or if an appointment had been made.” Another relative said, “The staff are usually good about keeping us informed, a few times though they have not told us about appointments or doctors’ visits until after.”

A health professional told us, “Staff are always professional and polite. They know residents well and contact us when needed.” We were also told, “No complaints.”

Care plans included evidence of regular partnership working with health professionals such as specialist nurses, and therapy teams. These records were well documented and showed responsive co-ordinated care. Staff were able to discuss how they ensured people were treated equally and fairly no matter their age, sexuality or their health diagnosis. They told us of their knowledge of the Equality Act and how they used this in supporting people and decision making.

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

Staff told us that they tried different ways of communication with people, "For people who can’t speak with us, we know their body language and gestures," and “We get to know people and understand their moods, body language.” Staff knew of aids that could be used, but said they hadn’t used them as they weren’t needed at this time.

Staff responded positively and creatively to people’s communication needs. Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers.

People’s communication needs had been assessed and recorded within individual communication care plans. These included specific information on how people’s communication needs could be met and what aided their communication. For example, those who needed spectacles or hearing aids had specific care plans. Systems to support people to communicate with staff, relatives and friends had been assessed and promoted. For example, staff supported people to call their families if it was achievable, staff also told us of how video calls had been used. All care plans were on a computer and this enabled them to be printed off for family, hospital appointments and transfers. They could also be enlarged for those that have sight impairment. We were informed that all organisational documents could be provided in an alternative language if required.

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.

People told us they were asked for their views and felt listened to. Relative, resident and staff meetings took place and there were opportunities to feedback regularly.

There was a complaints policy and procedure, we saw that concerns raised had been responded to promptly and thoroughly. The management team kept a log that ensured the registered manager had an overview. They told us they had an open-door policy and we saw people and relatives popping in to speak to the manager to share information and ask questions. Relatives told us, “I can raise concerns, with any one of the staff, very approachable.”

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

Relatives told us people were supported to continue to access the care and treatment they required outside the home. For example, for people with long term health conditions, the home worked with specialists and GPs to ensure care and support was provided.

People were able to access care, treatment and support when they needed to this was confirmed by families, staff and care records. There was evidence within people’s care records that when staff identified a health issue, they acted and people received treatment and care promptly with no barriers experienced. However we did identify that staff had recorded that a referral was to be made to SaLT in May 2025 following a choking episode and there was no evidence in July 2025 that this had occurred. The registered manager was to investigate.

Records showed staff had received training in Equality Diversity and they explained how they treated people equally, without discrimination and respected their individual needs, including any religious or cultural needs. People’s care plans contained information about their wishes in relation to how their social, cultural and spiritual needs needed to be met. This included care plans around sexuality, emotional support and daily lifestyle.

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.

Relatives told us that their loved ones are included and involved, and that they feel welcomed and listened to. One relative said, “Always welcomed –feel involved.”

Staff told us, “As a team we make sure everybody is treated with respect and that no-one is discriminated against.”

There was evidence of regular review and support from supporting health professionals within peoples' care plans. Staff ensured families were involved in all decisions. There were no restrictions to visiting, families were welcome at any time. There were organisational polices that ensured the provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements.

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.

We could not ask people for their views and so families were asked. One relative said, “I was involved in decision making with the doctor, we completed a form and that meant we could ensure my relatives wishes were followed, I don’t know if it gets updated or not.”

Staff were able to tell us about people and their preferences around end of life decisions. One staff member said, “Everybody has this information recorded on their care plan, it’s important we follow it.”

When people needed end of life care, staff told us they worked closely with other health care professionals to provide the best care for people in a compassionate way. At the time of the inspection, 83% of staff have undertaken e-learning in death and dying.

There was currently no one receiving end of life care (EOL) Staff told us that they delivered care that took account of people’s wishes and their comfort, and ensured they received pain relief if they required it. We were told holistic aspects of care such as lip care, mouth care, and hand massage would be added to a care plan when they required it. Care plans identified people's preferences at the end of their life and the service co-ordinated palliative care in the care home where this was the person's wish. Care plans contained information and guidance in respect of peoples' religious and resuscitation wishes. Everybody had a ReSPECT form in place. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment and ensures their personal wishes are followed. Relatives and friends were supported with compassion through this difficult time. For example, visiting for those people at the end of their lives was extended, with the facility to stay overnight if wanted.