Scarborough Hall and Lodge Care Home

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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans were written central to the person. Staff were directed to support people in individual ways important to the person they were caring for. Rooms were personalised and decorated in the style people living in them wished. Staff ensured people’s wishes were at the heart of their care.

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 received continuity of care from a stable staff team. A relative told us, “I see the same faces, there’s no high turnover of staff, so continuity of care.” The registered manager, and their staff, had forged close working relationships with other professionals supporting people’s care.

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

The home had some communication cards for people whose first language was not English, and had planned to expand this provision to better support communication. Relatives told us they were kept informed. One relative said, “Very much we are kept informed. Staff contact me and my brother.” Another told us, “They email the activities every week. I reply with what I think [person] will do.”

The provider was aware of the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard and ensured this was met.

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.

Regular surveys took place to understand people’s views of the service. These were analysed and used to implement changes and improve the service. There had been no negative feedback provided about the service in these surveys. Staff surveys took place and had a good level of response, with all staff providing positive feedback.

The service had a resident ambassador; information about who was displayed in reception, along with their photograph. This person lived at the home and was an additional mechanism for people’s voices to be heard. A relative told us, “I think the staff encourage [name of person] to speak out and ask for things.”

People and relatives told us they would feel comfortable making a complaint. One person told us “I would got to the person in charge.” Relatives comments included, “I would go to the (registered) manager, she is very approachable”, “If I have a complaint I have not fear I’m happy to go to them”, and “Any concerns staff here are happy to report to the (registered) manager.”

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

The provider did not discriminate about accepting referrals; this was based solely on whether the home could meet people’s needs appropriately. Staff had received equality and diversity training.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Everyone we spoke with felt they were treated fairly and equally and without discrimination. People had their protected characteristics recorded and these were known and respected by staff.

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.

Care plans contained information about people’s advanced care wishes. Staff knew and understood these. Staff had respected people’s wishes and delivered the care people had chosen. The service ensured people received religious blessings, should they wish to do so, at the end of their life.