Acacia Lodge Care Home

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’s individual needs, preferences and choices were known to staff and reflected in their care plan. Staff knew people well and understood the concept of person-centred care. People knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support. People were supported at the end of their life and care plans reflected their decisions and wishes. Staff had received training in end of life care.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were involved in decisions about their care and care planning where they could. People's representatives took part in assessments where their family member did not have the capacity to make decisions about their care.

Staff tailored people’s care to meet their individual needs and preferences. Where people’s needs changed this was shared with staff and care plans were updated.

People received personalised care that met their needs. Staff knew and understood people’s needs and preferences.

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.

People spoke with staff, nurses and managers about their experience of care. A relative told us, “It is a home with lovely atmosphere, they do ask families for suggestions, probably the meeting was the other week, but I was poorly and my relative was in hospital so I couldn’t go, but now he is better we will try to go for next one.” Where people and relatives had attended meetings and had given ideas and suggestions, the management were responsive and action was taken. For instance, improved laundry arrangements and increasing the range of activities to suit people’s known interests and hobbies.

Staff listened to people's feedback and took action to improve their care. Managers listened to people’s feedback and complaints and acted upon.

There were systems in place to involve people in the provision of their care and the running of the home using team meetings and informal conversation with staff. The complaints system in place was followed by the managers. All complaints were recorded, responded to and action was taken. Any learning to improve the service was shared with staff. The relatives meeting minutes showed the manager shared information, welcomed feedback and provided updates. For instance, at the last meeting they shared the plan to improve the garden and outdoor areas for people to use. Following the on-site assessment, improvements to the garden area at the front of the care home had been completed.

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 received care that met their needs. Where people did not have any family representatives, the managers ensured they had been referred for legal representation. One person said, “I like it here and I don’t want to move from here, I was worried if they could support me properly but now I trust them and I think I am starting to feel better.” Another person said, “I feel comfortable living here, but I would like to go out more, especially when the weather is nice and warm.” This was raised with the manager who provided assurance there were plans in place to improve the garden and outdoor space for people to use. All people were regularly assessed for health and well-being and were referred to health professionals where required.

Staff provided the same level of care for all people. Where people required support to make decisions, they involved family or legal representatives.

There were systems in place to ensure all people received the care that met their needs, regardless of their status.

People were asked about where they would like to receive their care if their health was to deteriorate. People's information from other health professionals about their care at end of life was recorded and regularly reviewed with them. People's preferences were followed. A relative told us they supported their family member to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care as their health declined.

Staff had received training and were experienced in looking after people who chose to stay at the home at the end of life. Staff involved the GP in managing people's care.

There were systems in place to record, monitor and review people's preferences for their end of life care.