St. Michaels Lodge Also known as Shakthi Healthcare Limited

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

People had goals and targets set to promote independence within their care plans, however, records did not demonstrate whether people had met these goals or their progress towards them. Relatives found the care to be generalised and not always personalised. A relative gave an example of having staff who could speak their family members language to increase engagement and provide better outcomes for them. Staff understood the importance of treating people with respect and not to discriminate. Staff told us they included people by asking them what they wanted to eat and trips they wanted to go on. People were supported to receive healthcare support to maintain people’s health needs.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

A relative provided feedback on whether they felt that their family member received personalised and tailored care. They said, “I feel the care is tailored but not specifically for [person’s] needs - in general, no issue, but tailored to the average person in the home. It could be improved, as [person] needs more support.” The same relative said, “Staff have a good understanding to an extent (managing behaviours), but with the language barrier, could be a barrier. I have seen in the past if staff does speak the language, [person] engages better."

Staff respected people living at the service and told us discrimination was not tolerated within the home. A member of staff said, Inclusion to me is all services users are included in their care without any prejudice and discrimination I understand they are different. They have their own individual needs. The home can meet their cultural and religious needs.”

People’s support plans did not show how goals and outcomes had been met. For example, one person was to have a reward chart completed and would receive peanuts and cigarettes for using the bathroom, this was blank. We were not assured how the person was either being supported to have better outcomes in this area and to feel they had achieved their goals. In another example a person’s care plan stated they were to have a structured day to prevent boredom. The care plan did not express what this would look like and observations showed that they were constantly asking for cigarettes as they were not engaged in another activity.

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.