Forest Lodge Rest 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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained as requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 62 (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 not always involved in the planning of their care. Most people and relatives we spoke with told us they had not been involved in the person’s care plan or review of this. We observed times where staff did not always interact positively with people. For example, during mealtimes, we saw staff place items in front of people with little to no interaction from staff. However, care plans we reviewed did mostly contain important information about people. Such as their likes, dislikes and preferences.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff understood people’s cultural needs and the diverse communities which they served. Where people wished, they were supported to access their faith. Such as attending local mosques.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider ensured where people whose first language was not English, documentation was available in alternative languages, staff were available who could speak alternative languages or translation was available.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The provider had suggestion boxes available for people to provide feedback. We observed a meeting held with people who use the service. Not all people chose to be involved in this; however, people had the opportunity to feedback suggestions on activities and how improvements could be made at the service. Changes and updates were then provided to people at the next meeting.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, referrals to specialist services such as speech and language therapy (SALT) and occupational therapy (OT) were not always completed or completed promptly where there was a change in people’s needs. This placed people at risk of harm.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff received training in equity, diversity and human rights. This was observed in practice.

People were 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. Although end of life care was not required at this time. People’s spiritual needs had been considered and factored into end-of-life planning.