White Rose Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider did not always assess and record people’s needs in a timely and consistent way, which limited how well care could be planned and reviewed. For example, the home relied on a ‘person at risk’ document rather than care plans for up to 72 hours following admission. However, regular reviews took place and care plans were updated as soon as needs changed.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by following professional guidance and monitoring people’s health needs. One visiting professional described clear clinical practice, including where people needed repositioning and skin care regimes. Care records reviewed included structured guidance for staff to follow. For example, catheter care planning and escalation indicators for infection and deterioration, and recommendations for safe swallowing.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The provider supported joined-up care by working with external professionals and sharing information to meet people’s needs. A health professional told us, “The staff are always welcoming. Any problems, seniors deal with them straight away.” Records also showed multi-disciplinary involvement, including stroke team contact and follow-up actions such as requesting and chasing moving and handling plans and equipment guidance.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff monitored people’s health and sought appropriate access to health professionals, when needed. The provider supported people’s wellbeing by offering a wide range of meaningful activity and encouraging routines that helped people stay engaged. For example, lifestyle activities included regular exercise each week. The provider also supported people to access community and outdoor opportunities such as café trips and garden use, which helped promote people’s wellbeing.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider had systems in place to monitor people’s outcomes, including audits, incident analysis, care plan reviews and feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals. These systems supported timely involvement of health professionals and led to improvements in some areas, such as management of falls, post‑hospital care and medicines oversight.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the need to support people to make decisions where they had capacity and to act in line with best‑interest decisions where they did not. DoLS authorisations had been submitted and were in place for 1 person, and some capacity assessments were recorded. However, consent documentation and best‑interest decision‑making were not always complete or consistent. We found gaps identified in relation to use of equipment, such as bed rails, sensor mats and aspects of restriction following incidents. This limited assurance that people’s rights were always fully protected through clear, timely and well‑evidenced consent and decision‑making processes.