Chapel 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, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. We found staff interacted with people in a friendly and caring way. People and relatives told us staff were kind and they enjoyed sharing friendly banter with them. One person said, “It is a lovely atmosphere, and the staff are very nice. I feel I belong here.” However, our observations showed that sometimes people’s dignity was compromised.

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. The provider employed an activity co-ordinator who arranged social activities for people. People told us they enjoyed the hairdresser visiting and told us they had access to sufficient opportunities to stay socially active. However, some people who preferred spending time in their rooms, told us they would welcome more quality time with staff. During our inspection we observed minimal activities and social engagement taking place.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People were not always involved in their care and support. People’s care plans did not record people, or their relatives had been involved in decisions about their care. People told us they had limited choices about daily life. One person said, “They [staff] tell you what day you can have a bath.” Another person said, “No you can’t have a bath and a shower when you want.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Whilst staff were kind and caring we found they were often task focused and at times communal areas were left without staff presence which meant people did not always have access to staff if they required support. For example, some people may have required support to mobilise or require reassurance, but there were times where staff were not available to respond to their needs. One person waited 40 minutes to be transferred from their wheelchair to an armchair, as staff were busy. We raised these issues with the provider who took action to improve response times. One relative told us their family member had waited over 2 hours to use the toilet. One person said, “Yes, they [staff] come quickly when I ring for them. They should have more staff though.”

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. The management team did not always offer daily guidance and direction to enable and support staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team but had not always received annual appraisals. One staff member said, “I have not had a formal appraisal, but the manager is supportive and approachable.”