Nutley Lodge Care Home

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

We received mixed comments from people about the support they receive from the service. One person said staff, “Couldn’t be any better.” However, another person told us they had to wait when wanting support. At this assessment we found systems and processes had not always identified shortfalls in the records relating the provision of food and drink. People did not always receive care and treatment in line with their assessed and planned needs. Care plans were not always clear and did not always provide sufficient guidance for staff to keep people safe. It was not always clear in people’s care plans what was important and mattered to the person. The registered manager and provider failed to properly assess and record people’s capacity and best interest in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This was a breach of Regulation 11 (Need for consent) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People told us they liked living at Nutley Lodge. One person said, “I’m cared for ever so well. I couldn’t be cared for better”.

We saw evidence of clinical guidance for a modified diet being followed and staff were able to show us where this information was stored.

Care plans did not always inform staff of people’s likes and dislikes. It was not always clear what was important to the person. People’s monitoring records do not always evidence they were receiving sufficient amounts to eat and drink. Some people had lost significant weight. The registered manager had implemented a weight audit monitoring tool by the second day of our assessment to monitor ongoing weight loss. Food monitoring analysis were showing evidence of main meals. However, there was no evidence of some people’s assessed needs being met.

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.

People were not always happy with the food and choices available. One person said, “I quite enjoy it, I can’t grumble but it’s not always what I like”, another said, “It’s quite good, mainly things that I like and usually you get a choice”.

The manager was able to inform us of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, this was not always adhered to when the service completed a mental capacity assessment.

Whilst some Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications had been appropriately applied for, best interest decisions had not been assessed before the DoLS application. We were not assured care and treatment was always in line with the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005.