Valley Lodge 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

We assessed 1 quality statement from this key question. We have combined the score for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection. The provider failed to ensure people received person-centred care, which was a breach of regulation. People and their relatives were not always involved in care planning. We found care was often planned around the needs of staff and the service, instead of people’s needs.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Feedback from people and their relatives was varied. One person told us, “I have breakfast in my room because I prefer that”, and a person’s relative said, “I’m happy with [person’s] care, they’re good here”. However, we also received feedback from relatives who did not feel their relative’s needs were met.

Feedback from staff and leaders indicated care was often provided in line with staff needs, instead of people’s needs and preferences. For example, a ‘task list’ stated night staff should start supporting people with personal care at 5am, and there was a ‘bath/shower rota’. Although it stated staff should ask in case they don’t wish to get up yet, the registered manager did not demonstrate an understanding of why instructing staff to start waking people up at 5am as a blanket practice was not person-centred. A staff member told us, “Night staff [whose rotas show usually finish at 8am] have to do personal care for 15/16 people or more”. Staff also told us people who needed support with their meals had assigned seats at mealtimes. They said, “We decide who sits where based on there being enough room for the wheelchairs to be sat at each table”. We saw people were taken to their assigned seats and when a person went to sit down, a staff member stopped them and said, “not that chair, sit in this chair”. Although the registered manager and a staff member told us people would not be forced to sit on a specific table if they refused, they did not demonstrate an understanding that this was not person-centred and did not mean people were offered a choice.

At lunch we observed a staff member standing over 3 people, supporting them all to eat at the same time taking turns to give each person 1 spoonful at a time. We saw another staff member supporting 2 people in the same manner. This was not dignified or person-centred. Staff used radios to communicate with each other and, although we saw some care plans stating some people were distressed by loud noises, the radios were very loud, and we observed people visibly startle on multiple occasions. In addition, staff referred to people by room number. Although we were informed this was to maintain confidentiality, we also observed multiple instances where staff referred to people by room number to each other in person, and in front of the people they were speaking about. This was not dignified or person-centred, did not consider that other people living at the home and their visitors may know people’s room numbers, and alternative ways of communicating hadn’t been explored. However, we also observed some person-centred interactions between people and staff. For example, when a person had chosen to lay down on the floor and appeared content, staff respected this and ensured they were in a safe and comfortable position. Staff stayed near to the person so they were ready to support as soon as they wanted to get up.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.