Ormsby 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 remained the same. This meant people’s needs were being met.

This service scored 64 (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.

Support plans and risk assessments did not always reflect the personalised care being delivered. Key details about people’s preferences, goals, and support needs were either missing or out of date. This limited the ability of unfamiliar staff to provide consistent and informed care and increased the risk of people not receiving support in line with their individual wishes.

We observed staff and managers delivering care in a kind, respectful, and person-centred way. Staff knew people well and adapted their support based on individual personalities, preferences, and communication needs. People appeared comfortable and confident around staff and were supported to make choices about their daily routines and activities.

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.

The provider worked in partnership with other professionals including advocacy and the Intensive Support Team. A professional told us, “Ormsby Lodge works effectively in partnership with other services and professionals. Referrals are made appropriately and without delay, ensuring that service users receive the support they need when they need it.”

The provider supplied information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff communicated with people in ways they understood and adapted their approach to meet individual needs. During our visit, we observed staff using Makaton to support communication. Staff demonstrated an understanding of how each person preferred to receive and process information.

People’s care plans included photos, there were also photos of people engaging in activities. People were keen to share these photos and talk about their experiences. The manager told us they were exploring ways to expand the use of easy-read formats to further support accessibility.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Relatives shared mixed views about how well they were listened to and involved in their loved one's care. One relative felt their suggestions were valued during meetings, while others said these meetings had become less frequent, though they still appreciated being able to raise concerns informally during visits. Feedback about communication was also varied. One relative said, “It’s very good, they phone me if there are any problems,” but another commented, “I only hear things when I bring her for a meal – it would be good to have a brief report.” A relative also mentioned that newsletters or updates about activities were no longer being shared.

Residents regularly attended house meetings where they planned activities, chose menus, shared good news, and selected the next chairperson. These meetings encouraged involvement and helped people feel included in decisions affecting their daily lives.

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

Staff supported people to overcome communication or mobility barriers. This helped to ensure they could attend and engage in healthcare appointments and follow up on advice or treatment plans. Where one person did not like to attend the GP practice, the GP visited them at home. Specialised equipment was in place to enable people to attend appointments including walking aids and wheelchairs. These processes supported people to stay healthy and receive timely care from professionals, reducing any barriers to access.

Suitable staffing levels to meet the needs of the people at the service were available. Staff had access to a 24 hours emergency on call system should they need additional support when managers were not available at the service.

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.

Staff delivered support in a way that respected people’s identities, preferences and routines. People experienced inclusive care that reflected their individuality.

People shared that they took part in meaningful and personalised activities, such as gardening, music sessions, creative arts, holidays, and visiting places important to them. One person said staff supported them to light a candle in memory of someone close to them. Others described enjoying regular trips, including holidays planned around their specific preferences, such as visiting the coast or booking accommodation with a hot tub.

A professional told us the service was responsive to people’s individual needs and interests, giving examples of how staff supported one person’s interest in vehicles and another’s love for boats.

People were not 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 records did not consistently show how people were involved in making decisions about their future care and support.

There were no advanced care plans or end-of-life care plans in place to plan ahead for people’s wishes. For two people, funeral plans had been arranged, and their advocates held these details. However, there was no evidence that people's wishes around end-of-life care had been explored. This lack of planning meant staff did not have access to information that would help them provide personalised and respectful care should a person's health deteriorate.