During an assessment under our new approach
About the service
Pulsford Lodge is a care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care to up to 49 people. At the time of the assessment there were 26 people living at the home.
Who the service is for
The home specialised in the care of older people with a wide range of physical and mental health needs.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment between 2 and 7 September 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
The home was well led by a registered manager and senior staff team who were committed to providing high-quality, person-centred care which was non-discriminatory.
One member of staff had nominated the registered manager for a leadership award. They wrote on their nomination form, “[Registered manager’s name] actively promotes equality and respect within the workplace. She has zero tolerance for racism, discrimination or gossip ensuring everyone feels safe, valued and treated fairly.” We also saw the registered manager had addressed some areas at a resident meeting to make sure everyone living at the home was equally valued.
The ethos of the home was for people to continue to live fulfilling lives in accordance with their wishes and needs. Staff supported people to do this. One member of staff said, “It is all about supporting people to do what they want to do.”
The provider carried out regular checks and audits to make sure people were receiving safe care and support and were being consulted with about all aspects of their daily lives.
Where it was identified that improvements could be made the staff were innovative in their approach. For example, jelly drops had been introduced to support hydration in people who were reluctant to drink sufficient fluids. Monitoring showed the introduction of these had led to reduced infections for some people.
There were regular meetings for people living at the home and people told us they felt comfortable to raise concerns or make suggestions. All complaints made were fully investigated and responded to.
All staff spoken with knew how to recognise and report issues of abuse, and all said they would be comfortable to report any concerns. Staff said there was an open and transparent culture which ensured they could always report any mistakes. Learning from mistakes, incidents or complaints was shared with staff and used to improve practice.
There were enough skilled and experienced staff to make sure people received care and support in accordance with up-to-date good practice guidelines and legislation. Staff said they were happy with the training they received and felt it gave them the skills they needed to effectively support people. All staff spoken with said they would recommend the home as a place to live and work.
Throughout our visits we saw kind and caring interactions between people and staff. Staff supported people in a way that was respectful and dignified.
People received their medicines safely from senior staff who had received specific training to carry out the task. Risk assessments were completed where people chose to administer their own medicines.
All areas of the home were well maintained to ensure the safety of people and staff. Regular audits were carried out to make sure the building and equipment remained suitable for its purpose. People were consulted on any changes and were able to be part of choosing colours and furnishings.
People had their needs assessed before they moved to the care home. Care plans were created from initial assessments. Care plans were very personal to the individual which enabled people to follow their own routines and interests.
We saw evidence of how the support provided to people ensured positive outcomes. This included staff building trusting relationships with people with complex needs to enable them to have more fulfilling lives.
People received care and support with their consent. Where people lacked the capacity to make specific decisions, people and those important to them, were involved in making best interests decisions.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.