Pembroke 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 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 received person-centred care that was in line with their preferences, likes and dislikes. Staff and the management team knew people well and knew how they wanted to be supported.

People’s care plans were individualised and detailed how people wanted to be supported in line with their individual likes and dislikes. A relative told us, “The staff all seem well trained and understand [person’s] needs”. One person commented, “I’m very happy with the care here, they [staff] know me well.”

One staff member said, “The care plans are a very good guide so we can provide the person centred care our residents [people] need.”

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 care and treatment in line with their assessed needs. Relatives said people had regular health checks and care reviews

Staff worked closely with community health care providers and knew when to refer people for specialist care. They accessed support, advice and treatment for people from physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, chiropodists, and opticians.

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

The service followed the principles of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) to identify,record, and meet the information and communication needs of people with a disability, impairment, and/or sensory loss. This ensured people were given information in a way they could understand.

People had person-centred care plans covering their communication needs. Information was shared with visiting health and social care professionals where necessary to ensure people could get the best out of medical and other appointments.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People told us they knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to and were confident it would be taken seriously by the management. The service’s complaints policy was on display in the home. The complaints process included details of how to appeal a decision and contact details for the local government.

People told us they were listened to, and confident concerns would be dealt with. Their comments included, “I haven’t had any concerns” and “I would feel fine to speak to any staff member as they were all easy to talk to.”

The provider made sure people could access the care and support they needed in a timely way. People’s care was planned in a way which worked for them, and which promoted dignity, equality, and human rights.

The provider used people’s feedback and other evidence to improve access for people more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing their care.For example, people’s and relatives feedback was used to rewrite menu choices and access to different food.

The building was fully accessible to people living with a range of physical needs. Doorways and corridors enabled wheelchair users and people using walkers to access all areas such as the lounge areas, dining room and the garden.

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

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination and having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics. The provider recognised potential discrimination and inequality and proactively addressed barriers to improve people’s experience of the service.

People’s religious and cultural needs were discussed at their initial assessments and recorded in their care plans.

We spoke with the chef who told us, “I can prepare any meal, and we are planning a cultural day to include meals and dishes from a variety of different cultures.”

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. For example, 1 person had detailed their future plans. This included funeral details, religious needs and family details.

People were able to discuss their preferences about the care they wished to receive towards the end of their lives. People’s wishes were respected if they chose not to discuss this aspect of their care.

Where people had expressed a preference, do not resuscitate documents were held in care, and shared with the wider health system and understood by staff.