Alma 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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 50 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them, however this was not reflected consistently in peoples’ documentation.

People's health and social needs were assessed before coming to live at Alma Lodge Care Home. This had ensured the service could meet the identified needs of the person and that staff had the necessary training to keep them safe and well.

People’s communication needs were assessed regularly and reviewed to ensure people were offered opportunities to participate in their care decisions. We observed staff speaking to one person in their first language, which enabled the person to participate in discussions. In the care plans that were available, people's assessments included sufficient detail about their individual care needs and preferences, which had ensured their needs were met effectively.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.
The provider and registered manager had a good knowledge of people’s needs, which we were told was then shared with staff. However, this was not always documented within individual care documents, so we were not fully assured that all important information was shared. The registered manager acknowledged that the care documentation was not suitable for the people they supported at this time. They informed us that they had changed to a computerised system in September 2025 and had experienced trouble with implementing the care documentation. During the assessment process, missing care plans were created but there were errors and inconsistencies in the information. Staff were to complete further training and guidance in using the system. Previous care plans could not be used as they had not been updated since August 2025 and the registered manager advised us they did not contain current information.
The provider used a computerised care record system for all their care services. This system used recognised assessment and monitoring tools to track improvements or concerns. For example, weight loss and skin integrity. However the last weights recorded were in September 2025, it was unclear if people had been weighed since.
The service had links with other organisations to access services, such as the mental health team, and people confirmed that they were able to see a health professional when they needed to.
Staff told us they were a given training which followed current good practice guidance, and that they got updates and refresher training. One staff said, “We get training refreshers and supervisions. We also have competency assessments for medicine giving.” However, there were gaps in the training matrix that meant that not all staff had the required training at the time to meet peoples’ needs. This is covered in the safe and well-led questions.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.
People's health and social needs were assessed before coming to live at the service; the impact of these had been considered and there was information about what was important to people and how they would like their care and support to be delivered.
The risk assessments and the care plans that were in place showed evidence of regular review. Staff ensured that a transfer of care document was sent with people when they moved between services. Staff gave open and honest information during assessments to ensure smooth transitions of care. One staff member said, “We work well with the paramedics, and GPs, we also work with different specialist teams, physiotherapy. occupational therapists and have worked with the falls team.”

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.
There were people who chose to smoke and whilst this was their choice, there was no plan to help the people with either stopping smoking or reducing their smoking, or attending a cessation course from the GP service. This was especially important as one person was living with a respiratory disease linked to smoking. The registered manager said they had reduced their smoking by half since coming to live at the service, however this was not recorded and staff said that the person still smoked up to 20 cigarettes a day. Some people who lived with diabetes, mobility problems and lymphoedema and were overweight did not have a weight reducing plan in place. The completed nutritional risk assessment for one person stated a need to lose weight and be weighed weekly. This person had not been weighed since September 2025. Staff weighed the person during the inspection, and their weight had increase by 13kgs, which would have a direct negative impact on the persons’ health.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.
Comments from relatives were positive, and included, “They always let us know if there is a change in their health.” Another told us, “[Relative] likes living here, they seem content, but bored and they are eating well.”
The lack of care plans for some people identified that they had not had their care monitored regularly since September 2025. People who did have a care plan had their care reviewed monthly along with their risk assessments.
During the assessment process the registered manager completed the five care plans that had been missing. As discussed, they were not reflective of people’s needs or accurate. The registered manager has confirmed they will be reviewed as a priority.

People’s ability to understand questions and to consent to care and support were recorded as part of the initial pre-assessment and admission process. However, these were not all accurate and decision specific. During the assessment process, the local authority offered support in this area.
Staff had received training in mental capacity and the importance of making decisions in people’s best interests. Staff were aware of the importance of gaining consent from people, one telling us, “Always ask first, if they refuse, we will offer again later.”
Staff told us if they noticed any change in people’s ability to make decisions, they would immediately report to the manager, and a new assessment would be completed. People and their loved ones confirmed that people were given opportunities to make their own decisions. One person said, “Always polite and ask me first, I need help sometimes, they do it well.” A relative added, “I see carers always ask permission if they see they need help.”