Southview Lodge Residential Care Home

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 service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to 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 service 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. Staff gave examples of how they ensured people received person-centred care and staff were seen to provide different levels of support to people dependent upon their needs. We observed the service had made reasonable adjustments such as adapted baths, beds and mobility aids; to ensure people received the most appropriate care for them. When asked if people were involved in decisions about their care, a person living at the home said, “Yes, staff promote decision making, they’re pretty good.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The rota evidenced continuity of care from a consistent staff team, and people and relatives confirmed staff understood the health and care needs of the service user group well. The registered manager spoke about visiting people’s previous care services to gather information and coordinate care. Partners at the local authority fed back that the service worked with them in a joined-up way to review and agree people’s needs and their funding eligibility.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager spoke about the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and how the service could provide information in alternative formats such as larger print or audio. A welcome video was available on the provider’s website providing information about the service and its staff, to people and relatives interested in a placement. Data protection policies were in line with current legislation, and staff gave examples of how they maintained confidentially and kept people’s personal information safe.

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 and relatives were asked to attend meetings and complete surveys to give feedback, and said they knew who to speak to if they had a complaint. A relative said, “[The registered manager] is very approachable, and I can talk to them. They are always quick to respond.”

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Care plans detailed reasonable adjustments needed to ensure people’s mobility and communication needs were met, and we observed various aids and adaptions to improve accessibility at the service. For example: handrails, hoists and dementia friendly signage. Care records evidenced people received the support they needed as agreed.

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. Policies and information included in the staff handbook addressed and discrimination and staff had training in equality and diversity. Care plans detailed reasonable adjustments made to address people’s protected characteristics.

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. A staff member said, “I would speak to relatives in person, ask them to share their wishes. I would offer additional visits during end of life and support relatives. Members of staff always stay with people who have no relatives.” People’s advanced wishes and ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) status were documented.