Godden Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked at 4 quality statements. People’s needs were assessed, and their care, support and treatment reflected their needs. Improvements were needed in people’s mealtime experience, the recording of their capacity to make decisions and their protected characteristics in order that their rights were upheld.

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.

People and their relatives had been involved in their assessments and regular reviews of their needs. A family member told us, “[Name of unit manager] rings regularly and lets me know how [relative] is. They also let me know of any changes and get my approval.”

Staff said they could access information about people’s needs and choices as care plans were clear and up to date. The registered manager explained how they assessed the needs of people, for example visiting a person to discuss if the service was suitable for them. As the service had 3 different units, reviews of people’s needs took place to ascertain if a different unit would meet their needs better.

There was a system to assess people’s needs and wishes, using a range of assessment tools to ensure their needs were reflected and understood. People’s care plans included a pre assessment, and details of their physical, emotional and mental health needs. Risk assessments included using equipment, leaving the service unaccompanied, mobility, pressure care and eating and drinking. Not everyone’s protected characteristics under the Equality Act were recorded to ensure their culture, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation were considered. The registered manager told us they were in the process of changing to a computerised system when this process would be reviewed.

People and their family members were positive about the food and drinks available. People made choices about what they wanted for their meals and, if they didn’t like what was on the menu, they could choose something else. Fruit bowls and snacks were offered, and drinks promoted. A person told us, “I like to be independent and make my own choices. I have egg, sausage, and tomatoes for my breakfast. There is always fruit available such as strawberries, grapes and bananas. Lots of drinks too. The cook always comes across and asks me if I have had any problems with the food.” Another person said, “The food is hot, variety each day, menu is pinned up on the notice board.” A family member said, “They often offer me dinner, which is lovely, and the food is fine.”

Staff were aware of people’s nutrition and hydration needs. People’s care plans indicated if they needed assistance, prompting with their meals, if they required particular diets or ways in which their food was prepared such as pureed or textured due to the risk of choking. Up to date information about people’s eating and drinking was recorded on a review sheet and not the care plan. This meant staff may not access the correct information if the care plan was not updated. We observed staff were attentive and respectful with people giving them time to eat and an enjoyable mealtime experience. Where required, people were offered protective aprons and staff obtained their permission for this. We noted however, in 1 unit, people did not always have a good experience at mealtimes. For example, we saw a staff member assist someone whilst leaning over their shoulder, another standing at the back of them so the person could not see them and another continually leaving them for periods without support when they were unable to eat their meal without prompting. We spoke with the unit manager who agreed to look into people’s appropriate support during mealtimes.

The provider had systems to assess and monitor people’s nutrition and hydration needs in line with current guidance. This was monitored individually, recorded and any trends or loss in weight investigated. People were supported to eat a healthy and balanced diet to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People received personal and health care support which was coordinated to meet their needs. A person told us, “I have got an electric toothbrush and use it twice a day, saw the doctor today, and I need another test at the hospital, seen the optician, and seen the chiropodist twice.” Another person said, “I would recommend this place to anyone. The nurses and staff are all nice natured and happy to be here, even the cleaners and they chat to me. They are friendly.”

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support alongside other professionals. Staff worked collaboratively across the service and with health and social care professionals to ensure continuity of care and good outcomes for people.

There was very good communication and liaison with professionals and those we spoke with were positive about the way the service worked with them. A professional told us, “There has been massive changes to benefit better two-way communication, between the service and nurse and GP. Staff are very good at escalating concerns, seeking advice and taking action.” Another professional said, “The service always contacts us in a timely manner if any concerns. Staff always follow instructions. They know the residents well.”

Systems were in place to effectively link across teams and services to support people. Plans for transition, referral, discharge from hospital and admission to the service considered people’s individual needs, circumstances, and ongoing care arrangements.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People who could consent to their care and support told us their views were respected and they had choice and control in their lives. A person said, “I feel in control of what I want. If I am unhappy, I tell them. I have my own bedding, and they always ask when I want my bed changed. Clothes are washed and ironed for me.” Another person told us, “They always knock, ask if it is okay to come in, the staff always treat me with respect.”

We observed staff engaging with people who had different ways of communicating offering them options and enabling them to make their own choices and decisions. Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2010 which helped ensure they understood the principles of the Act and put the training into practice. Where people lacked the mental capacity to consent to care and treatment, the staff and management team worked in partnership with families and key stakeholders such as the mental health team and GP to make decisions in people’s best interests. A staff member told us, "If people have capacity, we go through all their needs with them, explain any risks involved. Those without capacity, we always include their family or representatives.”

There was a system for assessing people's mental capacity to make specific decisions relating to their care. However, some assessments we saw were not as detailed as they could be, were repetitive and some had incorrect details recorded. For example, one person’s capacity assessment for consent to live in a care home and their assessment for using bed rails recorded the same information. For another person, their name and gender were not consistently and respectfully used on all the assessments we saw. We made the registered manager aware of this and was informed shortly after the site visit that people’s mental capacity assessments had been reviewed and checked across all 3 units to ensure people’s rights were protected. People's capacity and ability to consent was considered, and they, or a person lawfully acting on their behalf, were involved in planning, managing and reviewing their care and treatment. There was a process to make applications to deprive a person of their liberty, called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People assessed as needing a DoLS authorisation had one in place and the registered manager was aware of when these needed to be reviewed and applied for. Notifications were made to CQC as required.