Chapel 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People's care plans were not always person-centred and, in some cases, focused on describing medical conditions rather than the support people required. For example, 1 person's care plan related to Alzheimer's disease and contained information about the condition itself but did not explain how it affected the person or the support they needed. While staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people's needs, care was not always delivered in a person-centred way. For instance, staff told us 1 person required the use of a hoist and this was in use; however, the management team confirmed the person was able to mobilise using a frame. The dining environment did not always reflect people's preferences or promote a positive mealtime experience. For example, some dining room tables had not been laid with placemats or condiments at lunchtime. People and relatives raised concerns regarding the management of personal clothing and laundry. One relative told us, "[Family member] is always clean and their clothes [are clean], but they are not always their own [clothes]. [Family member] has never worn their own clothes here, but they are always well dressed." We also found that personal information was accessible within communal areas, which meant confidential information could be viewed by others and people's privacy was not always respected. One person said, “I would not recommend here because I feel institutionalised.” One relative told us they were upset when their family member had requested assistance to use the toilet. They went on to say staff had told them they were wearing continence wear and instructed them to use that. The relative said, “They [staff] did not come and change family member for over 2 hours.”

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. Staff communicated well with external healthcare professionals and followed their guidance. However, documentation could be improved to reflect this. The management team were aware of this and were in the process of addressing it.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There was evidence of staff working alongside healthcare professionals to achieve safe and effective care and support. Information was available throughout the home and displayed on notice boards. Easy to read versions of policies and procedures were also available.

The provider enabled people to share feedback, raise concerns and make complaints about their care, treatment and support. Whilst there were systems in place to gather feedback, and a complaints procedure was available; people were not always fully involved in decisions about their care or informed of changes made as a result. Records demonstrated that concerns and complaints were taken seriously and appropriately addressed by the management team. Although feedback and comments were displayed within the service, there was limited evidence to demonstrate that actions taken had resulted in sustained improvements or embedded changes to practice.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had limited access to outdoor space. The garden area required improvement to ensure it was safe, well maintained and inviting for people to use. Although a sensory room was available, items were being stored there, which detracted from the purpose and intended experience of the room. Signage was available to help people navigate around the home.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. People were not always fully involved as partners in planning and reviewing their care and support. Care records did not consistently demonstrate that people had participated in setting personal goals and desired outcomes. In addition, goals and outcomes were not always documented in a person-centred way, which meant support was not consistently delivered in line with individuals’ needs, preferences, and aspirations.

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. Staff were knowledgeable about end-of-life care and told us they would ensure people and their relatives were supported in a compassionate way.