Ashdown 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 unchanged.

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

This service scored 71 (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 placed people at the centre of their care and treatment and involved them in decisions about how their needs were met. Staff worked in partnership with people and, where appropriate, their relatives to respond to changes in people's needs and preferences. Staff delivered care in a person-centred way which helped promote people's dignity, independence and well-being. A relative told us, “They sit down at her level and asks her what she wants.”

Some care records reflected person centred principles and respect for people's rights and choices. For example, a care plan read, “[Name]`s decisions need to be respected, even if he makes what some might feel are unwise decisions. His sister [name] assists [name] with discussing and considering appropriate decisions.”

We observed that in practice, staff supported people in a person-centred way by listening to them, upholding their rights and respecting their wishes while promoting choice and control over their daily lives.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider worked with other services, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Feedback from some healthcare professionals indicated communication with the service was variable and opportunities to identify and respond to changes in people's health needs were not always recognised consistently. A healthcare professional told us, “It is seldom that we receive referrals from the home themselves”. Another healthcare professional told us, “At times of correspondence with the home, the communication can be mixed dependent of whom we engage with”. As the service relied on external healthcare professionals for clinical oversight and guidance, this presented a potential risk that opportunities for early intervention and support may not always be identified promptly.

However, records also showed examples of effective partnership working with the local GP practice and appropriate referrals to specialist services, including mental health teams, speech and language therapy, and the end-of-life care services, when required. This helped support continuity of care and access to specialist support for people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider had included the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) into individual care records. AIS aims to ensure people with disabilities or sensory impairments can access and understand information in a way that meets their needs. The provider arranged adapted equipment, where needed, to meet people`s communication needs. For example, we saw a person with access to an easy-to use telephone with large font and buttons, which supported them to independently maintain contact with their family.

Information and guidance around the service was provided in ways people could understand, including the use of signage to help people orientate themselves and move around the building independently. This helped promote people's confidence, reduce confusion and support people to remain as independent as possible.

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. A person told us, that staff were all “pretty good at listening to us. Whatever we ask for we get and if we don`t like something we tell them.”

People, staff and relatives told us the management team was approachable and accessible, and they did not need to wait for formal meetings to raise concerns or discuss ideas. This promoted open communication which enabled issues to be addressed promptly.

Complaints and concerns were responded to appropriately, with people kept informed about actions taken and improvements made in response to feedback.

The provider enabled people opportunities to contribute to decisions about their environment and aspects of the service. For example, a person told us they had helped to choose the cushions because it reminded them of the seaside. This reflected a culture where people were respected, involved and reassured their views were valued and acted upon.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to attend healthcare appointments with support arranged alongside relatives where appropriate, to help ensure their health needs continued to be monitored and met. A relative shared their experience, “Yes, I was consulted about hospital appointments. They offered to take her, but we arranged that I would meet her there at the hospital. They rang to check on how she was doing when we were there at the hospital.”

People were also supported to access appointments that promoted their personal well-being and self-esteem, including personal grooming services. This helped people maintain their independence and sense of identity while supporting equal access to services that were both important and beneficial to their well-being.

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 received training in areas such as dementia care, which helped them recognise how people's experiences and outcomes could be affected if their needs were not understood or appropriately advocated for. There were examples that people experienced positive outcomes as a result of the support provided.

A relative told us, “Mum was neglecting at home that side of things, but here they do manage to support her. I am relieved she's been taken care of. She is happy. It's a big change from what she was like at home and I'm grateful, she is happy here.”

The provider supported people to plan for important life changes, including at the end of life, so they had opportunities to express their wishes and preferences for their future care. The provider`s arrangements for end-of-life care reflected recognised guidance and legal frameworks, including the Gold Standards Framework (GSF), a recognised approach used to support good quality end-of-life care and planning.

We saw an example of a person who was beginning to receive end of life care. Anticipatory planning was evident, including coordinating with the GP, referrals to specialist services, access to appropriate equipment, symptom management medications, and documented wishes relating to their care and preferences following death. This timely planning aimed to reduce uncertainty and avoid unnecessary delays in care, while supporting care to be delivered in line with the person`s preferences, wishes and values at the end of life.