The 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.

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 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.

Care plans did not consistently include information about how staff should support people during times of distress or outline people’s goals and aspirations for the future. However, staff knew people well and delivered day to day care in line with their recorded preferences, which were clearly documented and consistently followed. Care plans set out individual needs, likes and dislikes, supported by daily records, and people were offered a wide range of meaningful activities suited to their interests and abilities.

Relatives were actively involved in developing and reviewing care plans and spoke positively about their ongoing engagement. One relative told us, “Yes, I am involved in this,” and added, “We are in contact with the registered manager and deputy manager all the time; they talk things through and ask our opinion on things.”

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.

People benefitted from a consistent team of staff and were aligned to individual key workers and staff knew people well. Professionals undertook routine reviews of people medicines to ensure these remained right for the person.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
Staff did not always have clear guidance to support consistent and effective communication. Communication care plans were in place; however, not all contained up-to-date or sufficiently detailed information about how people chose to communicate.
For example, one person’s communication passport noted they may use sign language, but there was no specific information to help staff understand or respond to this. Despite gaps in documentation, staff demonstrated awareness of people’s non verbal cues. We observed a member of staff communicating with a person through touch and accurately interpreting their “yes” or “no” responses.

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 and their relatives had regular opportunities to share their views, and the service gathered feedback to inform improvements. The provider carried out satisfaction surveys for people using the service, and a recent relative survey received a high response rate with overall positive feedback.

Relatives confirmed they were routinely asked for their views. One relative said, “Yes, we receive one every year. I have not been dissatisfied with the service,” while another told us, “Yes, we do. We are very happy with what they are doing and the range of activities.”

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

Staffing levels were arranged in line with people’s assessed needs, and staff were visible, available, and responsive throughout the assessment. Staff adapted their communication to support people’s understanding, including using clear and accessible language.

Relatives told us the service was proactive in responding to people’s health needs. One relative said, “Yes, they absolutely seek support at the slightest thing and get a second opinion or take them to the doctors. They also keep us informed.”

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy, but it was not consistently followed because not all staff had completed the required training documented in this policy. The provider has since reviewed their training for their staff team and appropriate training is now in place for the majority of the staff team, however not all staff have reviewed or completed this training. The provider has placed people at potential risk by staff being unaware of the barriers some people face, increasing the risk that individual needs were not fully understood or met.

People were not consistently supported to make informed choices about their future, as care plans did not include identified goals or longer-term aspirations. This meant people had limited opportunities to work towards outcomes such as developing independence skills.

Although staff could describe how they supported people to maintain family relationships or access new services. This information was not clearly documented, and there was a lack of oversight in reviewing and monitoring people’s goals and longer term aspiration. Therefore, reducing the opportunity for people to progress and make informed choices about their future. The registered manager told us they were reviewing the process for identifying and recording people’s next steps and planned to improve how future goals and aspirations were captured within care plans.