Lavender Lodge Nursing Home

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 provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

During our inspection, we observed minimal interactions between staff and people. Staff were task focused and did not always take time to meet people’s social and emotional needs.

Whilst staff interactions with people were mainly task focused, the interactions observed were respectful. Feedback we received included, “[Person] needs to be hoisted out of bed, 2 of them do this and they do adjust [person’s] clothing to stop exposure, and they talk to [person] as they do it.” And “[Person] is being genuinely cared for and has a good rapport with the staff. There is interaction between staff and residents, but it is mainly to do with the tasks they are carrying out only.”

The provider 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.

Care records did not always record details of people’s cultural, social and religious needs, or guide staff on how to ensure these were met. People’s communication needs were not always met to enable them to engage in their care, treatment and support to maximise their experience and outcomes. For example, staff were not trained in British sign language despite supporting individuals in the deaf community.

Relatives felt people’s individual needs were not always understood. One relative told us, “The support staff show a lack of awareness of [person’s] condition sometimes.”



However, we observed some examples of individual preferences being respected. This included people being supported to express their individuality through make up, clothes and shoes.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and well-being.



For those that were independently able, people could access the community or maintain their hobbies, such as painting. However, for those that required support to do so, activities were minimal, and staff were not always available to take people out. One person told us they had been waiting since November to go out shopping and were excited to be going out that day, however the trip was later cancelled because of staff availability. During our 2-day inspection, only 1 person was observed to be playing dominoes with a member of staff. No other activities took place. On occasions, people were sat in the communal lounges or bedrooms with no television or music appearing to have nothing to do.



This was reflected in the feedback we received, which included, “[I] would like to go out more but there are never enough carers to take me out.” And “The staff have their tasks to do but there is no sense of fun at all. The staff are very busy but there is just no atmosphere.” And “There are no activities that take place.” And “Occasionally [people] may be given sheets of paper to colour in.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. A relative fed back, “Some of the carers are not sensitive to [person’s] needs. They don’t always give [person] time to process things before they move them into a sling for example. They are a quietly spoken dignified person, and they sometimes rush [person].”



Whilst staff could verbally explain different approaches they would use to support a person who was showing signs of distress, care records did not always corroborate that these approaches were consistently used.

The provider did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Systems to ensure staff had opportunities to raise concerns or feedback were not yet established. A supervision matrix was being developed to ensure staff were receiving regular one to one supervision. A staff meeting held in January showed staff had fed back that staffing levels needed to increase, but this was not actioned until the day of our inspection.



However overall staff told us they felt supported and valued in their roles. One staff member told us, “I feel, that I am treated well and get good breaks.” A well-being at work training module was provided for staff.