Steven 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

Staff were positive about the management and culture of the service. Staff told us about occasions when people were discriminated against and how they supported them through this. People were involved in planning their care and feeding back their views and choices.

This service scored 71 (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.

Staff were positive about the management and culture of the service. They told us they felt well supported by the registered manager and their colleagues. Staff described how people were sometimes discriminated against or disadvantaged because of their disabilities or other protected characteristics. Staff understood the importance of supporting people and giving them information to make informed decisions. Staff described to us different situations where people's protected characteristics could be impacted. They explained how they considered these situations and what they did or could do to support the person. Staff spoke about people in an enthusiastic way which showed much fondness. A staff member said, “(Person) is just nice to spend the day with.” And “I love working here and looking after these guys. (Person) makes my days all the time, joking. Their relative at last review gave us some history so I understand where (person's) jokes come from.”

There was a positive atmosphere within the service. People were not able to share specific feedback about this quality statement but fed back they were happy with the care they received, and they liked the staff supporting them. Relatives told us staff supported people's diverse needs and preferences.

Staff had a good understanding about supporting people with protected characteristic such as disability, culture or sexual orientation. Dignity audits were conducted which considered various areas. For example, how people were notified about events that impacted them, if equality and diversity policies were in place and considered when supporting people with their needs and how people were encouraged in decision making and participation of the service. People were involved in planning their care and feeding back their views and choices.

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.