Washington 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 changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.
 

This service scored 58 (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. People’s needs had been assessed when they were admitted to the home. However, care plans now needed updating to ensure they reflected people’s current needs and preferences.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Where people needed positional changes to help protect their skin from pressure damage, accurate records were not maintained to evidence this was done in line with people’s assessed needs. The registered manager advised this was a recording issue which they would address. There was nobody currently living in the home with skin damage.

People, relatives and staff gave mixed feedback about the quality and variety of food. A relative said, “Food and drink could be improved. I am unhappy with the food today. It was beans and mashed potato.” A staff member said, “If you like chips and beans you are good. It needs to be a bit more varied.”

There was lack of choice for people needing a modified diet. The pureed option on the day of inspection was mashed potato with beans, with some people offered scrambled egg as well. The registered manager told us this was a one off due to having to bring in agency staff at short notice. A staff member said, “There has not been a lot of choice today because it is agency. Otherwise, meals have been alright lately. There is only ever 1 choice of puree or blended meal.”

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 registered manager attended a multi-disciplinary team meeting weekly to discuss people’s health and wellbeing. Professionals gave positive feedback about partnership working.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Some relatives told us drinks were often left out of their family member’s reach. A relative said, “Staff left a drink at [family member’s] side which they can't reach. We have often come and their drink is over there.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and
consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People did not always experience positive outcomes due to a lack of consistency of staff and continuity of care.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Care plans described how people should be supported to make decisions. Staff regularly asked people for consent before providing care and support.