Archived: Virginia Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This key question was previously rated good. This key question remains good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff demonstrated a gentle, patient manner throughout our inspection. They were respectful and knew how best to communicate with people. Relatives and external visitors were treated with respect and the atmosphere was a welcoming one.

People felt listened to by staff who understood them, including their preferences, wishes, personal histories, backgrounds and potential. One person said, “They are all caring girls, they are lovely, just lovely.” One relative said, “They all know [person] very well and have some laughs.” Another said, “They know [person] really well and they feel really at home here, really relaxed.”

People were supported by staff who knew the importance of little touches, for instance ensuring people who liked handbags had them with them or wore jewellery where that was their preference. Staff communicated with people discreetly regarding their needs. The provider impressed the importance of upholding this dignified approach on staff in meetings and through supervisions.

The increased reliance on agency staff had meant people were supported at times by staff who they did not know as well. The provider had done everything practicable to reduce the impact of this on people’s care and experienced staff understood the importance of the continuity of care.

People were treated and valued as individuals. One relative said, "They look after him well – they know things like it’s important to him to be clean shaven, and what his meal preferences are."

Care staff understood people’s preferences and wishes. Care plan information to support staff to ensure people’s needs and preferences were understood were good. There were detailed individual plans and also a summary (‘This is Me’) section which gave a good, rounded picture of a person.

People’s religious needs were understood by staff, however care planning could be improved in this area. The provider committed to reviewing their electronic records system functionality to see if they could record information about spirituality/emotional wellbeing as currently these needs were recorded across a range of care plans.

Staff were respectful and compassionate throughout the inspection, showing affection and patience for the people they cared for. Whilst staff were clearly extremely busy at times, they never displayed a sense of being rushed to the people they were supporting.

People who had the capacity to choose felt they had control over day-to-day choices. The provider and staff had built up good relationships with families, so they had a good understanding of what preferences people might like, even when they were unable to choose. Care planning set out people preferences in terms of where they wanted to receive care, where possible. These records (advance care plans) were up to date and reviewed regularly.

People were supported to maintain relationships important to them as far as practicable, for instance friendships and seeing family members. The rural location did present challenges for people to receive visitors regularly. The provider had tried to implement resident and relative forums but these were not always well attended.

Due to the layout of the premises people did not always have as much freedom as they would like. Each bedroom had a small shallow step at the doorway, meaning people needed assistance from staff to leave or enter their rooms. This limited their ability to choose and move freely without support. Staff were extremely patient and receptive at all times to people’s needs, but these steps meant people’s independence was reduced.

Access to community events or locations was limited due to the location of the service and the availability of transport. The provider recognised this. They had invited in a local school choir in the hope of building connections that could visit the home.

The provider ensured staff responded promptly, in the moment, when people needed help. Staff listened to people views and wishes and acted on them.

When people changed their minds, for instance at mealtimes, or choosing where they wanted to spend their time, staff were responsive to this. They were patient and helped people articulate their needs.

Resident and relative forums had not been well attended but staff and leaders demonstrated that they reacted quickly to people’s urgent or changing needs.

Staff were responsive to people changing their minds, for instance at mealtimes or when planning activities.

External professionals raised no concerns about the responsiveness of staff or leaders in terms of their oversight of people’s needs and how they responded to them.

Staff felt well supported by leaders. One staff member said, “I can always go to [provider] or the deputy – they are both at the service a lot of the time, so you always have someone for support.” Staff described an environment where colleagues worked hard and supported each other with work and other matters. Another staff member said, “I had to have some time off and they were really understanding and supportive.”

The provider recognised and acted on the recruitment and retention challenges faced in social care. They did everything practicable to ensure the staff they employed understood the benefits and challenges of working in social care.

New staff received appropriate induction, supervision, training and support from experienced staff.