The 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

People told us that staff were kind and treated them well. Staff had developed a positive caring relationship with people who used the service and had a good knowledge of people’s individual needs and how they liked to be supported. People were supported to maintain as much independence as possible. Care plans included details on area’s people were independent and areas that they required support. Staff ensured people’s privacy and dignity was respected.

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.

Staff were observed as being kind, tactile and caring. We saw staff adopting a person-centred approach to people whilst encouraging people to do as much as they could for themselves.

The manager told us how they implemented and ensured that staff were clear of the organisation’s values, for example, as part of staff induction programme staff attend values training which covered people’s dignity of care. Also, by carrying out spot checks and observations the manager checked how people were being treated and cared for. This included talking to people and getting feedback from them.

A person we spoke with who worked for the NHS, delivering training to staff told us, “I feel I have a good relationship with the management and administration team, I feel they are caring and compassionate towards their residents.” A nurse who visited the service regularly told us, “All members of staff are polite, professional and are willing to help when we require assistance. I have witnessed the staff to be caring which is a pleasure to see. The staff are also super friendly and always smiling to the residents.”

We observed throughout the time we spent in the home that staff were visible and were friendly and helpful, engaging well with people living in the home and those who came to visit them.

A person told us, “The new staff are getting very good. They had a lot to learn, they are very respectful.” During our visit on the first day of the assessment, we attended the family meetings which were being held throughout the day. This gave families an opportunity to put forward ideas for the home. In one of the meetings family members asked for more activities to be held within the home.

Staff were clear that everyone should be treated as an individual, for example, one staff member said, “It’s about getting to know the person and building up a positive relationship as this helps you understand people’s likes and dislikes and how the person likes to be supported with their routines.”

In one of the lounges, we saw no evidence of meaningful activities planned for people. The television was on but there was a lack of anything else for people to do. At times we saw a lack of engagement and no materials such as newspapers or magazines to stimulate them. When asked if there were any activities planned for the day one staff member replied, “There is nothing planned.” During our visit we spoke with a person who was part of a married couple living in the home. They told us, “We have been here about 6 months, and we have got opposite rooms. We are together all day but cannot sleep together. That is the rules they say, it is the way they put it to us.” We raised this with the provider. They told us that they cannot accommodate couples owing to space in each room and that this would be made clear to people at the assessment stage.

During our visit we reviewed a number of care files. We saw that there were a range of well written documents detailing care which had all been reviewed. However, we noted in each file a lack of information telling us about each person and the lives they had lived. This was discussed with the management team.

On the first day of our visit, we observed lunch. We noted that some people struggled with co-ordination which impacted upon their ability to eat. We saw no evidence of adaptive cutlery, plates or plate guards to support people with eating. This was discussed with the manager who said they would address it with the team.

Staff told us how they supported people to maintain their independence as much as possible, for example one staff member said, “I only support a person in the areas that have been identified that they need supporting or if a person asks me to help them with something as it’s really important to encourage people to maintain their independence as much as possible. This also helps people have control over their lives.”

We observed that there were doors leading into a very sizeable garden, partially paved and laid to lawn. However, whilst we saw a few chairs and tables outside it was not clear how many people could access the garden and be seated should they wish to be when the weather was nice. The provider stated that they intended to add more furniture to the garden area.

During our visit we saw a constant flow of visitors to the home. Relatives of some of the people we met visited for whole days so they could spend quality time with their loved ones. Staff told us how it was their intention to make families understand that they could visit whenever they chose, and that the provider wanted them to understand that they had an open-door policy to visitors. We noted in reviewing care files sexuality was addressed in people’s care plan. The staff told us that whilst people generally were not expressing a wish to engage in sexual relationships, they did acknowledge the right for this to happen. The provider told us that staff promoted sexual safety of people in their care and they believed that there was no one at risk.

As part of our assessment, we found evidence of how staff respond to people’s immediate needs and how information was shared across the team. We saw evidence of ‘flash meetings’ being held. These were opportunities for staff to come together at points during the day to share important, relevant information in relation to people’s support needs. A person told us, “They (staff) support me to change 4 times during the night, I am sleepy and a bit dangerous, so staff see to me in bed, they all know that I need help. I wear my buzzer all the time, even in bed.”

The manager informed us that from carrying out people’s care reviews this helped to ensure that people received the right support at the right time. During the reviews people and relatives were able to voice their views and request for any changes to their care package and support needs. The manager also stated that they carry out spot checks to ensure that people’s needs were being responded in a reasonable timeframe.

We were assured that staff responded to people’s needs immediately. A person told us, “I like to be in my room, staff will always pop their heads round the door and ask if I need anything.” We observed people receiving support when they needed it, this included moving around the home and getting food and drink when it was needed.

Staff told us they felt supported by the manager. One staff member said, “I receive regular supervision and able to speak to the manager at any time if I need advice or direction. I feel really supported in developing my skills and have opportunities to further my career if I chose to.”

People were supported by staff who had received appropriate and relevant training. Staff received regular one to one supervision to discuss their role and development needs. We saw a record of when staff supervision and support was offered. The aim of the form was to give the management of the home an overview of how staff were being managed and supported to do their jobs. The information also included dates when staff would be offered an annual appraisal.