Acacia Lodge

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 a number of 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 requires improvement. We identified a breach of the legal regulations. People’s care plans were not always up to date as they did not always recognise and reflect their individual needs and personal preferences, such as for end of life care. Staff understood people’s care needs and preferences but did not always use the service’s digital care systems effectively to promote person-centred care. People and staff could raise concerns or complaints about the service. There were systems in place to record and respond these.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People experienced staff who were caring. One person told us, “Staff and carers are good.” However, some staff were not able to use the service’s digital care systems appropriately to help ensure people always received person-centred care in a planned way. The manager was taking action to improve staff competency with this. Care plans set out information on how staff were to support people to meet their care needs. This included people’s communication needs and some personalised information about their preferences, such as a person’s preferred toothpaste brand and how to encourage a person reluctant to receive care, such as their prescribed medicines.

Staff we spoke with showed a good understanding of people’s care needs, likes and preferences.

We saw staff providing support to people and being attentive to their needs. Most people spoke positively about the manager. A relative told us, “The manager is responsive and responds to the emails immediately.” A person told us, The manager is friendly, I can talk to them with any issues.”

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.

There were some opportunities for people and relatives to give feedback about their care and support and the running of the service. Monthly ‘Resident Meetings’ indicated people were asked for their feedback about various aspects of the service, such as the activities provided, the service’s environment and redecoration works and meals. Relatives told us they were able to raise concerns or complaints and these were responded to. Their comments included, “I would know who to contact, but I don’t worry as I would take a complaint forward when I need to” and “They’re very good at communicating with me if there are any concerns.”

The manager demonstrated an understanding of how they received and responded to complaints about the service. For example, in response to issues raised about meeting a person’s food preferences.

The provider had a policies in place to manage complaints and to support staff raising concerns. The manager completed a monthly audit to monitor that complaints were recorded and responded to.

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.

People gave us mixed feedback about being involved in their care planning. One person said, “I know my care plan, everything is alright for me.’’ Another person told us, “I have not been shown my care plan.” People and relatives spoke positively about the staff and how they were supported to make some choices about their day to day care. People told us, “Yes, I am treated with dignity” and “Staff are lovely and helpful.” A relative said “carers are really kind and provide great care.”

Staff respected people's individual preferences and showed a compassionate approach towards people they supported.

People’s care plans recognised their protected characteristics. One page profiles that set out a summary of people’s likes and preferences in relation to areas of daily living such as activities and religious beliefs. These were used to inform how the service was managed and making improvements to how activities were provided. The service had policies and processes in place to promote respect for people’s protected characteristics. Staff completed diversity and inclusion training to help them promote fair and equal treatment.

People’s care plans did not always set out their wishes should they become seriously ill suddenly or need care at the end of their life. For example, some people’s care plans recorded an action to discuss end of life care preferences with people and their relatives but this had not happened, even though they had lived at the home for a number of years.

The provider had care and risk management planning policies in place but these were not applied consistently to ensure people’s end of life care was always planned in a way that reflected their individual needs and preferences. We discussed this with the manager and they acknowledged improvements were required and said they would make sure this was recorded this clearly for people.