Solent Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We assessed 4 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the score for this area with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good.At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant there were shortfalls in management and leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. The service was in breach of the regulation relating to governance.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision and culture. Leaders spoke passionately about their roles and how they worked with people and their relatives to promote a positive and open culture. We observed mostly positive interactions between people and staff, and people and relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns if they ever needed to.

Leaders did not have the skills, knowledge, experience or time to manage the service effectively. When the last registered manager left in February 2024, the deputy manager and a senior became ‘managers in training’. However, at the start of our inspection on 20 February 2025, they had not received any additional training and had only just been enrolled on a course in health and social care management. In addition, they only had 1 day a week to complete management tasks, as all other days they worked as 1 of 2 care staff on shift supporting people. This was not sufficient to implement or monitor governance processes and systems needed for effective oversight, monitoring and improvement.

Although we identified concerns with leaders’ capability and capacity, they spoke about people, their relatives and staff with care and compassion. Leaders were clearly visible in the service and knew people very well. We received positive feedback from people and their relatives about management.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance.

Systems and processes were either not in place, or were not effective, to assess, monitor or improve quality and safety. Incidents were not effectively recorded, investigated or reviewed to identify trends and patterns. Although medicines audits were completed, these were not effective and did not identify shortfalls or learning.

Leaders did not demonstrate an understanding of their regulatory requirements and relevant legislation. For example, they were not aware of the statutory guidance ‘Right support, right care, right culture’, training requirements on supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people, or what incidents they were required to notify CQC of.

After our first site visit, we raised our concerns with the provider, who acknowledged they did not have the relevant skills or knowledge to make the required changes and immediately sourced additional support from a consultant. However, when we undertook a third site visit on 11 April 2025, following new information of concern, we were informed the consultant was no longer working with the service and had not been for a few weeks. Although the provider sent us an action plan, this did not address all areas of concern, or identify clear priorities, objectives or specific actions. A new consultant had been sourced and had started to provide support remotely, but had not yet attended the service.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning and improvement. Processes were not in place to ensure learning in response to incidents or concerns, or from examples of good practice. Although the provider was open and responsive to most feedback shared, we could not be assured areas for improvement would be identified independently.