Shore Lodge - Care Home Learning Disabilities

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 3 quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Though the assessment of these areas indicated areas of concern since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good. People were not supported following ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance. People were not supported in a person centred way, staff had not always supported people following guidance from healthcare professionals. People had little to occupy them throughout the day and some people spent long periods in rooms by themselves with little interaction from staff. The management team had not allocated people the 1:1 hours they were funded for, they were unable to take part in activities they wanted.

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.

Some relatives told us, that people received care that was centred on them and their specific needs. One relative said, “we’d like [the person] to stay here in the home with the staff here at the moment” another added, “I think [the person is] cared for quite well in the home”. However, one relative told us, “I am concerned about if [the person] is getting what [they are] supposed to”.

Staff told us they could access care plans and said they understood them. However, staff said they did not often read care plans due to time restraints and relied on updates and sharing information between the team. The manager told us they had spent some time redeveloping and fully updating care plans. However, people and their loved ones were not involved in planning their care or updating their care plans.

Throughout the inspection, we observed varying levels of quality when staff interacted with people. Some people were left unsupervised for long periods of time and not engaged in activities. However, some staff supported people whilst they were doing arts and crafts.

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.

Some relatives told us that issues or concerns raised with the service would be acted upon. One relative told us “a year ago it was a bad feeling here” and added, “we have seen a change with a family atmosphere”. However, one relative said they didn’t feel they were kept informed, “I have made it a point [the service] is not updating me, I have pressed on that and I must be kept up to date”.

Staff told us they learned lessons from concerns raised. The manager told us they listened to people and their family members in order to make improvements. However, we did not see evidence of either concerns raised by people or their family members, or improvements made as a result. The manager told us they hold regular meetings with people to hear their views. One person told us they wished to move into more independent living. Staff told us the person often said this but then changed their mind. We did not find evidence that positive encouragement was given or a plan to support the person to understand the options available and how they may be able to plan towards their goal.

There were processes in place to collect people's views but these had not always been effective. We reviewed a meeting dated 26 February 2024 where it showed that staff discussed with people activities and what they had been enjoying. There were only 2 people referenced. Menu choices and other activities were also discussed. However, there was little evidence these suggestions had been fully listened to and embedded into the service. The audits completed by the management teams highlighted that a feedback form had been sent to people’s relatives to try to see where the service could be improved or what they were doing well but the response rate was poor. The audits also stated, the staff survey had been returned in November 2023 but had not been analysed by the time CQC visited.

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.

Some relatives told us the service was responsive to people’s changing needs. One relative told us, “They sort things out and they listen to us” and added “they rectify things”. However, one relative told us their experience was that “things in place actually never get fulfilled”.

Staff told us they made sure people’s rights were respected and supported. However, we did not find evidence of this.

There were no clear processes in place to ensure people, or their loved ones, were supported to be involved in their care and support. People may not have the opportunity to plan their own care, or for people who know them well to support them to express their wishes. Representatives of community groups were not included in planning activities, to develop links and opportunities to enable people to gain independence and confidence to speak up when necessary.

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.