Worsley 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.

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.

During this assessment we found that one person did not have an active care plan in place after being at the service for six days. This was raised with the registered manager and was in place by the end of the day.

There was limited evidence that care plans were person-centred. They did not consistently reflect individuals’ preferences, choices, or involvement in planning their care. This indicates that people and, where appropriate, their families or representatives, were not always fully engaged in the care planning process. For example, one person was known to sleep most of the day and kept missing meals, staff were not always aware that meals had been missed and there was nothing in the persons care plan regarding offering food if a meal was missed.

Staff consistently demonstrated kindness, compassion and respect in their interactions with people. However, care delivery often appeared task focused rather than person-centred. While individuals’ immediate needs were met, there were missed opportunities to engage more meaningfully and use interactions to promote positive engagement. At times, communication was limited to completing tasks, which meant opportunities to better understand people’s preferences, interests and emotional wellbeing were missed. Feedback we received indicated that there were insufficient staff for them to be able to provide care to individuals in a way that met their personal preferences and needs and we have commented on this in the safe and well led areas of this report.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The providerdemonstratedanunderstanding of people’s needs and made efforts to deliver care that supported them in their daily lives. However, some aspects of the service were not consistently organised in a way that fully promoted choice, continuity, or independence. Elements of the environment were not always suitably adapted to meet the needs of individuals with varying cognitive abilities. For example, improved signage and the use of clear visual cues would have enabled people to navigate the service with greater confidence.The provider does not use pictorial menusand told us thatshow platesare used,we did not see this during our inspection, however staff told peoplewhat the options were.

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

The registered manager generally understood their responsibilities under the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). They told us that although there was nobody at the service that required alternative format at the time of inspection, they could change the format of documents to easy read. However, there was no use of visual aids to assist people with choosing food from the menu. People had access to listening books and communication cards were available should anybody require them. Staff had good knowledge of peoples’ individual communication needs, one member of staff told us that actions and hand gestures were used when communicating with a person that was hard of hearing

Some people told us they were unsure how to make a complaint and were not familiar with the manager.Feedbackindicatedthat the registered manager could be more visible within the service.Comments included, “I do not know the manager; I would like to speak with him to ask about staffing.” “Ido not know how to make a complaint;I would speak to the person in the office or get my friends to” Relatives also reported that they did not know where the manager’s office was and would instead raise concerns with senior staff or contact the main office directly.

A complaints policy was in place, and clear information on how to raise a complaint was displayed by the front door. Allformalcomplaints and concerns were appropriately investigated and addressed. Regular meetings for relatives wereheld;it was not clear how these meetings were advertised. The registered manager told usthat attendance numbers varied.

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

The building was easily accessible for people with no steps leading into the building or out into the garden. There was an on-call system in place for bank holidays and weekends that the manager and deputy rotated weekly, this ensured people could access care and support when they needed it.

Staff supported people in a way that respected their needs and generally reduced the risk of inequality in experience and outcomes.

Staff were appropriately trained and had access to up-to-date policies and guidance through online systems. This enabled them to develop a clear understanding of the principles of equality, diversity, inclusion, and the prevention of discrimination. As a result, staff were equipped to recognise and respond to individuals’ rights, ensuring that everyone received care that was inclusive, respectful, and free from bias.

People were not always 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

People’s care plans did not include discussions about their wishes and preferences for end-of-life care.

Staff had received some training in end-of-life care; however, this was not consistent across the workforce. We were informed that a small number of staff had attended formal training and were then expected to share this knowledge with colleagues. While this approach supported some awareness, it meant that not all staff had received the same level or depth of training, which may impact consistency in practice.