Pinetree Lodge

Updated 27 June 2025

Date of Assessment: 13 January to 5 February 2026. Pinetree Lodge is a nursing home that provides care and support for up to 34 people with dementia and complex distress behaviours. The aim of the service is to develop treatment approaches that families and other care services can use, when working with people and stay until these complex behaviours have reduced. At the time of inspection, 28 people were using the service.

Since the last inspection the organisation has changed its name to Everyturn and there has been a change of registered manager. We completed this inspection as part of our routine programme, and because of the length of time since the last full inspection was completed.

Overall, Pinetree Lodge demonstrated a strong commitment to delivering safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led care.

People told us they felt safe and staff treated them with kindness, respect and compassion. Staff knew people well and supported them in an unhurried, dignified way. Relatives described staff as caring and attentive, and we observed warm, patient interactions throughout the home.

The provider and senior leadership team had developed a strong learning and governance culture. The provider’s governance department had ensured robust quality assurance measures were in place. Routine service reviews were completed, and these had been nuanced to suit each location. Both senior managers and trustees took part in these reviews and completed listening exercises with people. The quality and safety team had a range of tools and audits in place, which helped staff understand risk and outcomes. The provider shared any learning across the wider organisation. Staff told us they felt supported, listened to and were able to speak up. We saw that leaders were visible and approachable.

Care was effective and person‑centred. Assessments were detailed and regularly updated, and staff understood people’s health conditions and how these affected them day to day. Staff worked proactively with external professionals when they were involved, sought medical input when needed and kept families informed. People’s nutritional needs were well supported, with staff providing one‑to‑one support at mealtimes where required. Mental capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were completed where necessary, and staff understood the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act.

The environment was well maintained, and risks associated with infection were assessed and generally well managed. However, since the change to an external cleaning contractor people noticed there had been a strong malodour throughout the home. When the housekeeper role moved to an external contractor laundry duties were not included in this change, which impacted support staff time and their ability to concentrate on the needs of people. The provider recognised this and was working with contractors to improve standards.

Staff demonstrated a robust knowledge of how to best work with people who had complex needs related to their dementia and were very skilled at delivering this support. The provider’s ‘people team’ had ensured a robust training programme was in place. They constantly evaluated its effectiveness; in terms of the impact it had on how staff delivered the service; if it assisted staff to effectively support people to improve their mental health and whether it had assisted the organisation to embed the overriding cultural principles of ‘Here so no one struggles alone.’

The provider valued the diversity within the team. When this was going to be adversely affected because of a change in requirements for international workers. the senior management and Trustees proactively changed their minimum pay scales. The People’s director was actively engaged in discussions with the government about salary sacrifice schemes and measures which would make sure there was equitable access to benefits.

The Trustees, senior managers, quality and safety team, clinical leadership teams and the management team within the service constantly reviewed the operation of the service and actively made changes as and when these were needed. The empathetic, caring and person-centred approach demonstrated by senior leaders was mirrored in the way staff worked with people in the service. Their interactions were based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and the community.

Updated 27 June 2025

Generally, people told us they were happy staying at Pinetree Lodge and said staff were kind, caring and supportive. They felt valued as individuals and trusted staff to meet their needs. During the inspection we saw relaxed, warm interactions between staff and people. Staff took time to speak with people in an unrushed way and offered reassurance when people appeared disorientated or distressed. Where people were unable to share their views verbally, we used a structured observation to understand their experience. These observations showed staff knew how to approach people, used people’s preferred communication styles and offered choices in ways people could understand.

Staff knew people well and supported them in ways that upheld dignity, choice and independence. People appeared comfortable in the presence of staff, and we saw many examples of warm, respectful care. Staff were patient and used clear, simple language, repeating or rephrasing information when needed. One relative said, “Over the years that I have been visiting Pinetree Lodge, I have found the staff, at all levels and without exception, to be caring, compassionate and dedicated individuals.”

Relatives spoke positively about the quality of care, describing staff as “caring”, “compassionate” and attentive to people’s individual needs. One relative told us their family member’s dignity and personal preferences were consistently respected, including when staff supported them with personal care or mealtimes. A relative said, “The care she has received over the years has, in my experience, been outstanding.” Several relatives commented that staff contacted them promptly, if there were any concerns. Relatives also told us there had been past safeguarding incidents, including unsafe exits from the home, although they acknowledged improvements had been made.

People enjoyed their meals and we saw staff offer alternatives if people did not want their first choice. Staff understood people’s dietary needs and preferences. Care staff provided activities and tailored these to each person. Some relatives felt activities were limited and said people did not always have regular opportunities for outdoor access or structured engagement. We found staff had a very good understanding of people’s preferred activities, and albeit events such as singers were not a staple activity, people were constantly engaged in a meaningful occupation including using the garden space and going out in the local area.

Relatives told us communication with the service was usually good. They said staff kept them informed of changes in health or behaviour and involved them in decisions. Relatives felt their suggestions had been listened to, such as improvements to signage and staff name badges, while others said their ideas about activities had not yet led to change.The registered manager discussed changes to activities that were introduced following relatives’ feedback such as the tea pot Tuesday group and pie with a pint night.