Earlfield Lodge

Updated 17 April 2026

Date of Assessment: 21 April to 8 May 2026. Earlfield Lodge is a residential home providing accommodation and personal care for older adults and people living with dementia. At our last assessment, we rated this service overall as requires improvement. At this assessment, we rated this service overall as good. The service can accommodate up to 35 adults. At the time of the assessment 15 people were living at the service. We carried out this assessment due to the previous rating and to follow up on our enforcement action. We assessed 33 quality statements in safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations of person-centred care, safe care and treatment, premises and equipment, good governance and fit and proper persons employed. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations. The provider had complied with the enforced conditions imposed at our last assessment. The provider had sent regular reports to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which demonstrated improvements made at the service.

Improvements had been made at the service to make and embed changes. Staff were now recruited safely. Significant improvements had been made to the environment to ensure Earlfield Lodge was a pleasant place to live. This included internal refurbishments, a secure outdoor space, the smoking area being relocated and enclosing hot water pipes to mitigate risks. People’s care plans now contained person centred information. This included people’s life histories, preferences and wishes. This supported staff in knowing people well and what was important to them. The office had been relocated to the ground floor by the entrance to the service, which improved visibility of management and better oversight of the service.

The provider had an action plan which identified and monitored ongoing improvements still required. Risk management required review to ensure direction was specific and accurate. Learning from incidents, accidents and safeguarding concerns needed to be fully effective. The fire risk assessment was being reviewed, along with people’s emergency plans. Complaints were not systematically recorded. Mental capacity assessments were being reviewed to ensure they were decision specific. The provider was working on developing the service’s values and partnerships. Governance systems had improved and were being further refined to ensure continual progress at the service.

People’s medicines were managed safely and were given as prescribed. The home was clean and tidy and supported infection risk management. A pre assessment was conducted to ensure the service could meet people’s needs. People received effective and responsive care. The service worked with health professionals and escalated concerns appropriately. People were supported to manage and improve their health and well-being. Health and social care professionals gave positive feedback about the service and care delivered. Staff received an induction to the home and ongoing training.

People were supported by caring staff who treated them as individuals and supported their independence. People were treated with dignity and respect. The home had a consistent team who knew people well. People were supported to plan and share preferences around their end of life wishes. The home had received a number of compliments and feedback about the service was encouraged. People had choices about how they spent their time. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were applied for when appropriate

Updated 17 April 2026

People told us they were happy living at the service and the home had improved. One person said, “It is so much better.” Another person said, “It has improved since [name of registered manager] has been here. Before that it was touch and go.” People told us staff were kind, respectful and helpful. People were supported by a consistent team of staff who knew them well. People said, “The staff are lovely,” and “Mostly they are brilliant.” Particular staff responsible for activities, maintenance and care were said to be, “Amazing.”

People told us they enjoyed the activities on offer at the home and could join in if they wished. A person said, “I come down here and play games.” Some people said they would like to access the community more and see further activities at the weekends available. People told us they enjoyed the food provided.

Some people could not directly tell us about their experiences, which meant we spent time observing interactions with staff. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI), a structured observation tool to help us understand their experience and assess whether they received good care. These observations showed staff were responsive to people’s needs and treated people with kindness, respect and dignity. We observed staff asking for consent before support took place.

There was a calm and happy atmosphere at the home. Staff worked as a team to be responsive to people’s health and well-being needs. People’s visitors were welcomed at any time. Relatives told us communication was positive. People’s independence was facilitated and encouraged. Significant improvements in the internal and external environment supported this. People were asked for their feedback about the service and this was listened to. People and relatives told us the registered manager and senior staff were visible and approachable.