- Care home
Ambleside Lodge - London
Assessment report published 4 November 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
This assessment of Ambleside Lodge was carried out between 10 June and 3 July 2026. Ambleside Lodge is a residential care home providing accommodation and support for people with mental health needs, including people subject to Ministry of Justice restrictions. At the time of our assessment 7 people were living at the home.This assessment of Ambleside Lodge was carried out between 10 June and 3 July 2026. Ambleside Lodge is a residential care home providing accommodation and support for people with mental health needs, including people subject to Ministry of Justice restrictions. At the time of our assessment, 7 people were living at the home.
We identified concerns regarding the safety and suitability of the environment. Multiple fire doors throughout the home were wedged open, some fire safety features were damaged or not functioning effectively, and hazardous cleaning products were accessible due to an unsecured storeroom. We also found concerns relating to infection prevention and control, maintenance of the premises and environmental risks that required action to ensure people were protected from avoidable harm.
Care planning and risk management systems were not consistently person centred. Records lacked detailed guidance to support staff in meeting people’s assessed needs and did not consistently describe people’s physical and mental health conditions, early warning signs of deterioration, relapse indicators or actions staff should take in response to increased risks. We found limited evidence of personalised support planning, crisis planning or documentation describing people’s preferences, goals, strengths and aspirations. In addition, records contained inconsistencies and some important documents had not been reviewed for significant periods.
Systems for monitoring quality and safety were not fully effective. Concerns in relation to safety were not addressed, and there was no recorded evidence that care records were monitored on a regular basis. Incidents and accidents were recorded, but there was limited evidence of analysis to identify themes, trends or opportunities for learning and improvement.
Staff were safely recruited and had received regular supervision and training. They told us the registered manager was supportive, and they received the information and training they required to undertake their roles. Staff spoke positively about the people they supported and demonstrated an understanding of their needs. We observed positive interactions between the registered manager, staff and people living at the home.
Overall, improvements were needed to ensure people received safe, personalised and rights-based care, and to strengthen governance and oversight arrangements across the service.
People's experience of this service
People’s experiences of living at Ambleside Lodge were generally positive.
People told us they felt safe and knew they could speak with the manager, senior support worker or other staff if they had a concern. They said staff were available when needed. People received support to access healthcare, including help to arrange appointments, reminders and staff accompanying them when requested. Staff also supported people to attend regular health checks associated with their medicines.
People described staff as kind, helpful and responsive. They said staff respected their privacy and dignity, listened to them and understood their preferences. We observed staff speaking with people respectfully, responding to requests and spending time with people individually. Staff offered people choices and supported them to have private conversations when they wished. One person said, “I can’t really fault them.” Another said they could go to the office when they needed help.
People said there were enough staff available to meet their needs and that someone was usually available if they needed support or wanted to talk. People knew what their medicines were for and said they received them when needed. Staff supported people to maintain or regain independence. This included accompanying people shopping, supporting them to go for walks and helping people attend appointments.
People were generally positive about the food. They described it as good or very good and said they could choose an alternative if they did not want the planned meal. People could prepare food for themselves, and we saw them using the kitchen outside scheduled mealtimes. Staff managed access when the kitchen was busy because it was small. Some fridges and cupboards were locked to prevent people taking each other’s food. People could ask staff for access. They understood the reason for this arrangement, although some found it inconvenient.
Most people could come and go from the home as they wished. People were expected to tell staff if they planned to return after 10pm. People maintained contact with family and friends. Staff accompanied people who lacked confidence to go out alone. Staff had also supported people to obtain information technology equipment and internet packages where required.
The provider did not routinely organise activities at the home. Some people said they mainly watched television. One person wanted more activities and said, “There’s gotta be more to life than just watching Frasier.” Another person wanted support to return to college. Records did not always show how staff followed up people’s wishes or supported them to develop the skills needed for greater independence.
People had regular key-worker meetings where they could discuss their needs, wishes and risks. There was evidence that some people participated in reviews involving staff and relevant professionals. However, one person did not know what was in their care plan. Care plans included information about people’s preferences and cultural, social and religious needs, but did not always contain all the health and support information recorded elsewhere. Records of key-worker meetings did not consistently demonstrate whether agreed actions had been completed or what progress people had made towards their goals.
People could provide feedback through key-worker sessions, residents’ meetings and surveys. They knew how to raise concerns and said they would approach the manager, senior support worker or another member of staff. However, surveys provided limited opportunities for people to give detailed feedback, and there was insufficient recorded evidence that people were routinely asked about their food choices and preferences.