Delamere 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 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 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.

Care was delivered in a person‑centred way. Staff knew people well and provided warm, individualised support, with clear examples of person‑centred care evident in practice. One person told us, “I like it here… the staff are good… I can’t really fault the staff,” and described staff who helped him enjoy music, conversation and going outdoors safely. Staff also shared examples of supporting people to choose when they went to bed, what they wore and how they spent their day.

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.

Care was coordinated or delivered in a way that ensured continuity across all parts of the home. Some staff reported good multidisciplinary links, including district nurse involvement and support for equipment such as mobility aids.

There were examples of positive collaboration, including staff who regularly contacted relatives about falls or health changes, and relatives who felt “staff work well together.”

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

One relative told us staff kept them informed about health changes: “They always let me know if he is down or up… any water infections.” Staff could explain people’s needs and communication preferences, and we saw examples of accessible information such as picture menus.

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.

Some relatives told us they were included in assessments and updates, and staff described reviews designed to support involvement. But other relatives felt their concerns were not acted upon. One relative described raising issues about cleaning multiple times, saying “staff did not pay any heed to complaints”.

Resident meetings did not take place, one person told us, “There are no resident meetings… there’s a questionnaire but I’m not keen.” Some relatives described being involved in positive conversations around room moves and hospital transfers, but this was not consistent.

While the new manager has taken steps to improve involvement, people’s experiences showed they were not always able to influence their care.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People and their relatives told us they were supported to have equitable access to health and social care services in their local area. People’s care records confirmed this.

People had access to the care and support they needed day‑to‑day. Staff described how people were supported to see healthcare professionals, including district nurses, GPs, memory clinic staff and physiotherapists. One relative told us staff called late at night when their mother was unwell and sought clinical advice promptly.

People had regular visitors and access to family, and staff helped people maintain relationships. One relative said, “I can come late at night, and the night staff are all lovely… all caring.”

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.

People experienced fair and consistent outcomes across the home. People described warm, respectful relationships with staff. Staff often expressed positive views about fairness, with multiple staff saying they believed the home treated people equally.

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.

Nobody was receiving end of life care at the time of the assessment. However, care plans were available for people and could be adapted by taking part in advance planning and discussions.