Barton Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.  One person told us, “They are really good here because they are so nice and kind, I am quite comfortable. I can have a shower whenever I want. There are plenty of carers, I have no complaints.” Another said, “I have no complaints, they are all kind, night staff are too. I am looked after very well.”   A relative told us, “I think it is a well-run home. The communication is very good. The care workers are lovely. The way they interact not only with my [relative], even with other residents is also very good.” Another told us, “The care workers are very kind, and very hard working. They are always friendly and welcoming when we visit.”

The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.  Some care plans were generic and did not contain personalised information in relation to the person. For example, clinical care plans contained generic guidelines instead of information specific to the person and how their condition could impact them. Where people had specific religious or cultural needs, the service acknowledged these and made sure they were available. For example, where people required a specific diet.

The service did not always promote people’s wellbeing.  Records showed, people did not always receive regular opportunities to participate in activities. We received mixed feedback from people about the activities on offer in the service. Where people were more likely to remain in their rooms or be cared for in bed, we observed, and records showed there was limited engagement opportunities for them. Other people told us they were able to do things they enjoyed. One person said, “We play ball games, skittles and dominos.” Another told us, “I’ve been playing Connect 4 with [staff member] this afternoon, they won!” We observed staff promote people’s health and independence. For example, we saw one staff member gently persuade one person to use their walking frame saying, “It would be good exercise for your legs.”

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff respond to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.  We observed one person was becoming distressed, this was spotted by a staff member immediately. We observed the staff member get down to their level and gently encourage the person to think positively and reminded them that her family be visiting later that day. We saw this placed the person at ease. We also observed the use of assistive technology to support people to maintain their independence, for example, the use of falls sensor alarms.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. All staff we spoke with told us they felt well supported. The registered manager told us how they worked with staff to find suitable adjustments to enable them to continue to work around their medical conditions. A staff member said, I am comfortable to go to the managers if I have any issues.”