Earlfield Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Over the past 2 years a number of admissions had been unsuccessful. The local authority and the provider had identified the service was not suitable to meet the needs of those people. The failed placements could have been prevented if the provider had recognised that the building was not suitable, and the staff had not received the appropriate training. This had resulted in people being moved to other care services. The provider and registered manager had reflected after admission that Earlfield Lodge was not a suitable placement for some people. The provider had a statement of purpose in place regarding the needs of people, which they supported. They had updated this during the assessment of the home. Improvements were being made to how care plans were being reviewed by the registered manager. These changes were being implemented with the provider auditing them. Further improvements were needed to ensure people’s care plans reflected their needs. For example, how people with dementia, hearing and sight impairments liked to communicate with staff. Most people we spoke with said they knew nothing about their care plan or the need for it to be updated regularly. There appeared to be a wide range of care needs between those residents who lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves and those who were very independent.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We spoke with people about the care which they received and asked them if they had been involved with their care plan. One person told us they did not see the relevance of a care plan as essentially, they were living independently and did not require any care. Another person told us, “I have never seen my care plan although people talk about them”. They appeared vague as to whether there was a plan for them to return home or stay permanently. One relative told us, “I have never seen mum’s care plan”. They recognised their mum had deteriorated but they were unclear about any future care plans.

The staff spoke positively about the home, the support they received and about the care which people had. One staff member told us, “I only have to ask the registered manager or send him a message and I’m sorted”. The registered manager and provider told us they had learnt lessons and reflected upon the past failed discharges at the home. They were working with the local authority who were carrying out reviews of people’s needs.

Assessments of people were undertaken by the registered manager and deputy before they were admitted to the home. Records of admission assessments were maintained. People’s assessments and care plans needed further detail recorded about their individual diverse needs, such as religion and sexuality. There was a lack of information about people’s preferences, dietary and communication needs. The assessment formed part of people’s care plans which needed improvement. Assessments were reviewed by senior staff and the deputy manager. These were audited by the area manager. It had been identified that improvements were needed to care plans and the information they contained, and staff had started to work with people to review their care plan and gain this information. The provider had a statement of purpose in place which was out of date. This did not contain information about the current admission criteria. This was updated during the assessment of the home. We spoke to the registered manager and provider about sticking to the admission criteria at all times.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.