Foresters 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

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 64 (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, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff understood the service’s values and there was a clear intention to promote a caring culture within the home. However, this was not consistently embedded in day-to-day practice, with multiple examples of task-led care, inconsistent responses to call bells, and poor dining experiences indicating that shared expectations were not always upheld.Staff feedback also highlighted that concerns raised did not always lead to meaningful or sustained change, suggesting a culture where learning and improvement were not consistently translated into practice. As a result, while the culture was caring in intent, it lacked the consistency needed to ensure safe, person-centred care was reliably delivered across the service.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders were described as approachable, supportive and visible, with staff and professionals reporting positive working relationships and confidence in management. There was evidence of structured oversight, including regular audits, analysis and daily ‘flash meetings’ to monitor risks and drive improvement. Leaders responded to feedback during the inspection and took action to address identified concerns, demonstrating a commitment to improving the quality of care. However, governance systems had not consistently ensured that issues were identified or improved proactively, which limited the overall effectiveness of leadership

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns with senior staff and described managers as approachable and open to feedback. There was evidence that issues had been escalated by staff in the past, for example, regarding staffing pressures, and managers had taken action in response. One staff member explained, “I can always speak up if I have a concern. It is always put right, or I get the help I need.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider had relevant policies in place and staff had completed equality, diversity and inclusion training, including mandatory learning to support awareness of protected characteristics. Staff told us they felt supported and described a generally inclusive working environment where different backgrounds and needs were respected. The service demonstrated a positive commitment to equality and inclusion.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had governance systems in place, including audits, risk registers and action plans. Managers were able to describe how these were intended to provide oversight of risk and quality. However, these systems were not consistently effective, as multiple concerns relating to medicines management, care records, environmental safety and risk management were identified during the inspection. For example, audits in medicines could be improved to better identify concerns. These had all had regular monitoring or audits undertaken. This demonstrated that the oversight in place did not reliably identify risks early, prevent recurrence or drive sustained improvement. As a result, governance arrangements did not provide sufficient assurance that the service was being managed safely and effectively on a day‑to‑day basis.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider worked with external partners and professionals and this supported continuity of care for many people, though evidence is stronger for professional relationships than for wider community integration. Professionals described positive partnership working and responsiveness. Engagement mechanisms were in place with relatives and actions linked to feedback. People often enjoyed visits within the community. Staff had worked in partnership with Parkinson’s Nurses to facilitate closer working relationships and share best practices.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Managers described systems for learning from incidents, audits and feedback, and leaders demonstrated willingness to respond when concerns were highlighted. However, learning was not consistently effective or embedded. For example, several areas of poor practice were identified during the inspection despite having been previously monitored. Improvements were often reactive and prompted by external challenge, rather than driven by routine reflection or innovation. As a result, learning systems did not reliably prevent recurrence or lead to sustained improvement, limiting their impact on people’s experiences and outcomes.