Barton 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

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.

The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans required more detailed information about individuals to enable staff to understand their needs and provide support in the way each person preferred. For example, records showed one person needed the assistance of two staff members for all care requirements. However, the records did not clarify how both staff members would provide that support. Another care plan highlighted a person was unable to engage in certain activities due to their dementia, but it failed to offer additional details or examples of things they could still do.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People received care from a consistent staff team which promoted continuity of care.

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was not always presented in a way that was accessible and understandable for each individual. For example, some areas provided a clear weekly activity plan, while others failed to do so. Certain tables displayed printed menus with pictures of the options. However, the text and images were small, making it difficult to read. We also saw positive use of communication methods. One person used a communication book containing pictures of common or regular tasks, and also included emotions, so the person could express how they were feeling. Staff were aware of this and spoke to us about its use and how it helped them to maintain communication and understand the person’s needs.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. The service missed opportunities to ensure people were fully involved in their care planning. It was not always clear how people had been given the information they needed to understand and make decisions. People we spoke with were not always aware of their care plan. However, the service did ensure relatives were involved. One relative told us, “I think they are doing a great job taking care of her. I am definitely aware of her care plan. They keep me informed about Mum’s health condition all the times.”

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We found people were able to access external health services without delay and the provider had worked with external professionals such as speech and language therapists and community nurses to support people.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. We observed differences in the care delivered between the residential and nursing areas of the service. Whilst we observed generally positive interaction and ongoing engagement in the residential areas of the service, we found staff in nursing areas were often task led.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Records were not always person centred about people’s wishes as they approached the end of their lives.