Harrier 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

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

This service scored 68 (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 ensure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and care was not consistently planned and delivered in a way that met people’s individual needs.

While care plans were in place and covered aspects of people’s needs and preferences, these were not always consistent or reflective of all assessed needs.

For example, 1 person’s needs assessment identified they experienced depression and anxiety, with behaviours that may have been linked to this condition. However, there was no care plan in place to guide staff on how to support the person or help them manage their anxiety. There was also no information to identify potential triggers or strategies to reduce distress. Staff did not demonstrate a clear understanding of how the person’s condition may impact their presentation or how to respond appropriately. There was mixed feedback about involvement in care planning and reviews. While some relatives felt involved and informed, others reported limited involvement, particularly around formal reviews of care plans. A relative told us, “I get invited when my relative is the ‘resident of the week’… we discuss their care plan, and they will ask if there is anything I would like to change.”

Daily care notes were completed at the end of each shift to record the care provided and reflect people’s experiences.

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.

Feedback from people and relatives was mixed. While some felt needs were met, others highlighted inconsistencies in care. A person told us staff were not always attentive, and a relative said their family member was not consistently supported to sit out of bed during the day.

Professionals also described differences across the service. A healthcare professional reported that care differed between units, with some staff demonstrating good knowledge and flexibility, while others were less responsive to people’s needs.

However, there were positive examples of person-centred care. People were supported to engage in activities and maintain well-being. One person said, “I join activities but I choose the ones I’m interested in.” A relative described, “Staff and residents were up dancing and singing… it was lovely,” and another confirmed their relative was supported to attend church in line with their wishes. We also observed staff offering activities tailored to people’s interests.

The provider had taken steps to improve care for people living with dementia, including engaging specialist support and providing staff training to strengthen practice.

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

People’s communication needs were assessed during the pre-admission process and documented within their care plans. Staff knew how best to communicate with individuals and meet their needs. For example, we saw staff bending down to people’s level and speaking in an appropriate tone and pitch. Staff also supported people to use aids that enhanced their communication, such as ensuring people wore their hearing aids and glasses where needed.

The provider told us that information could be made available in accessible formats where required to support people’s understanding.

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.

People and their relatives told us they would approach different staff depending on the issue. A person said, “I know the manager… I usually speak to the team leader staff first.” Relatives also felt confident raising concerns, with 1 relative stating, “They get back to me straight away if I email a concern.”

There were examples of staff listening and acting on feedback. For example, a relative told us, “They started showing a ‘show plate’ so [my relative] could choose their meal… and it works.”

Regular meetings were held to share updates and gather feedback, including discussions about care, staffing and the running of the home. A relative said, “It’s okay at the meetings as they inform us of what’s happened in the month and keep us updated on what’s to come.”

Systems were in place to manage complaints. Records showed complaints were acknowledged, investigated and resolved appropriately.

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

The environment was adapted to meet people’s needs, with suitable facilities including accessible bathrooms, toilets with grab rails and call bells to enable people to request assistance when required. There were also appropriate spaces available for people and their visitors, supporting a comfortable and inclusive environment.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of how the service supported accessibility. They gave examples of aids and adaptations in place, such as mobility equipment and call bells, adapted bathrooms and toilets, which helped ensure people could access care and support effectively.

Care plans documented people’s religious, ethnicity, disability, gender, sexuality and other protected characteristics if any. Staff had completed training in equality and diversity and they understood the importance of recognising and responding to barriers to care and support and knew how to escalate concerns to a senior staff member where required. The registered manager described arrangements in place to ensure care was always available, including staffing levels and access to support during out-of-hours periods and emergencies.

Staff and leaders listened to people who are most likely to experience inequalities

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and that their rights were promoted. Regular resident and relatives’ meetings provided opportunities for people to share their views, raise concerns and contribute to decisions about their care and the running of the service. People were aware of their right to complain and felt able to do so if needed. People told us they felt empowered to express their views and understood their rights, including their human rights. A person told us, “We pay for the service we get and if the service falls below what I expect I will complain. It is my right and I know this.”

Staff had received training in equality and diversity, which supported their understanding of promoting people’s rights and reducing barriers to care.

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 documented people’s preferences for future care, including their wishes around resuscitation, and the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment were completed where appropriate to guide clinical decision-making.

Staff had received training in end-of-life care and understood the importance of supporting people with dignity, compassion and respect during this stage of their lives. Staff worked in partnership with healthcare professionals, including GPs and palliative care teams, to ensure people received appropriate support and their needs were effectively managed.

There was evidence that people were given opportunities to express their wishes about their future care, including advance decisions where appropriate. Care plans reflected these preferences, supporting staff to deliver care in line with people’s values and choices. People and their representatives were involved in discussions about their future care planning, which helped ensure decisions reflected what was important to them.